Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon nuclear model
Source: 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. 13 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moon nuclear model
- Moon nuclear model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Seems an extremely odd atricle, mixing the nuclear periodic table with the atomic one. Couldn't find a relevant paper in a respectful scientific publication, at least not in the last years. It all looks like crackpot stuff. I suggest the deletion of this article, unless such publications are supplied. Dan Gluck 05:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally this model has no connection to fundamental physics such as
]
- Delete. The only sources are either a group called "Blaze Labs", which matches the name of the originating editor, and several links to LaRouche Movement publications. This does not appear to be a notable physics theory. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Someguy1221 09:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When this theory gets published in a proper peer reviewed journal it can be recreated, although the sun will have expanded into a red giant by then and the oceans will have long since boiled away. Nick mallory 13:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've asked people in the nuclear physics community both in Israel and the UK, and no one seem to have heard about this model. Dan Gluck 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comments by Gluck, Mallory and Beback. Edison 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Definitely not ]
- Delete (nn one person's theory) and review the contributions of User:Blaze Labs Research regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Pjacobi 11:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this article does not have a magic number of reliable sources to indicate its notability and should fall apart into its component wiki-ons. Anville 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.