Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyroscopic-aether

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gyroscopic-aether

Gyroscopic-aether (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Neologism apparently from 1980, never came into popular use; definition from Merriam-Webster Open Dictionary (? copyvio). Originally created by an editor with the same name as the person who is reported to have coined the term. Risker 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL --Javit 02:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, I'm going with nonsense here. The article is basically a dictionary definition, has nothing more than a link to Merriam Webster's list of new words (on which this is not included, apparently), but a search on M-W's open dictionary has something of a definition - which reminds me of things I see in Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Oh, it *is* at that link on the page, sort of - click "last" to go to the last page of the open dictionary listings for "G" and you will see that it was added there by a person using the same name as the editor who created the article here. Risker 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd like to throw in WP:BOLLOCKS, and WP:OR. It borders on nonsense as well. The end reads like spam...What would possess someone to theorize about aether fields nowadays? Someguy1221 06:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete In addition to what others have metnioned, the term seems to lack notability and the article does not seem to be verifiable. (There 5 Google hits after removing sites that mention Wikedpedia and all of them were flaky.) Cardamon 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.