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. - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't even meet the relevance threshold for pseudophysics. One person's effect, not reproducable by others, no full page ad in The Economist, no DIY kit sold for astronomical prices, no physicist cared enough to do a rufation. Delete. --Pjacobi 12:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete It doesn't exist, and the fact of its non-existence isn't news either. BTLizard 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete only a few non-trivial google hits. This term seems to be used by very few people. Uucp 14:46, 5 September 2006 (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.