Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estakhr's Constant (physics)

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.

Estakhr's Constant (physics)

Estakhr's Constant (physics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing this to AfD because it needs attention from someone knowledgeable in physics. I cannot find a single reference to this in Google Books or news. Nothing. Smells like an elaborate

• Delete. Appears to be largely biased or a hoax. Only Google results are either forums or youtube, or this article. Rarkenin (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pure nonsense. The article makes grandiose claims of having found a theory of everything by writing down the weak-field metric of GR and replacing coordinates with operator expectation values (quick—somebody email Ed Witten!). A search of Estakhr on arXiv turns up nothing. Googling estakhr big bang only turns up the same incoherent blog posts that have been pressed into service as "references" for this article. Zueignung (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This version was denied at AfC, and this version has some strange comments at the bottom from the IP author. The article was copy/paste moved from AfC. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you enjoy the part where the article's creator added an external hyperlink to a WWW page calling it "empty nonsense"? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsensical hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• The traditional response, when the article writer points out that the subject is a secret is to state that it must thus be too secret for Wikipedia and we are required to ensure that it remains a secret by deleting it. I did a history merger to restore the original authorship, by the way. I was all set to go to User talk:The Illusive Man to ask xem what on Earth possessed xem to write this, since it seemed out of character, when I figured out that it was an AFC submission. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as something which is not physics. a13ean (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think not a hoax, which implies intent to deceive; the author probably believes in his theory, but it is unverifiable
  reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Hoaxes and pseudoscience can sometimes be notable. Not in this case though. No independent reliable sources exist at all. Fails
  talk
  )
  • I also think SNOW applies here for any passing admins. It's pretty clear that this is never going to be acceptable here. No point in waiting another 7 days.
    talk) 23:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete: Per
  WP:OR. This is mentioned in exactly ZERO reliable sources. All I could find is blogs and forums of the lowest sort. Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete: Qualifies for {{
  db-nonsense}}. Starts with "There is a physical constant ... that is a single unified force!" and doesn't get better. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment That probably wouldn't have worked; CSD#G1 has a very high threshold of acceptance for most admins, for good reasons. G1 is something where the entire contents are "osdkoasdk" or something like that. Certainly not a page and a half of mathematical formulas, useless or otherwise. §FreeRangeFrog 03:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As FreeRangeFrog points out, the criterion is patent nonsense, not merely nonsense. Patent nonsense has a specific definition, and it covers things that cannot possibly be understood, not things that can be understood but are simply unverifiable or original research. That latter is a decision that has to be made through a consensus discussion involving many eyes over a week in order to be made with a reasonable degree of safety. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article have 'one reliable source' that is accepted conference abstract (that is origin of all other references too) so that is enough to say it is 'not' a hoax.

"a search on arXiv turn out nothing", this is clear because author is not american!!! :D, any way, JohnCD is right, it is unverifiable and 'original research' with only one poor reliable source, i also think article is reliable (as a physicist)

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.