Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal stone

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:32, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fractal stone

Original research in incomprehensible English. See how the Italians are voting. -- RHaworth 06:33, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

• delete completely baseless. Snowdog 08:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Extensive patent nonsense. Delete. -- The Anome 08:52, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• delete - The article was probably meant as a "promo" for some book or websites, but the translation makes it really funny. --M7it 08:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it wasn't encyclopedic in its original Italian, it certainly isn't in mangled incomprehensible English. --the wub (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like original research to me. I think. Kelly Martin 04:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. -Murgatroyd 06:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: pardon me for intruding, but a quick eyeball of the "mangled incomprehensible" hints to me that this may well be an article about recent discoveries of fractal patterns in stone strata. This could really do with peer reviewing, by someone who can tell fact from f*ction. --62.25.106.209 06:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • See [1] for examples of the extraordinary claims being made, and [2] for the only example given as "proof" of these assertions. Even if you don't consider it patent nonsense (which I do, see vote above), this is certainly original research, and apparently unverifiable. -- The Anome 07:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe I qualify as "someone who can tell fact from f*ction" in a discussion of fractal-related material. This article, and the sources linked, are slightly more scientific and coherent than Time Cube. -Murgatroyd 07:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can translate it in a way that English speaking people can understand AND convince us that logic, as we know it, has been disproven. --Fazdeconta 12:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Baseless. Linuxbeak | Desk 02:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.