Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New ideas in 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.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New ideas in physics

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

Appears to be original research. The Anome (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The facts that the article's creator is
Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I also think its original research. In addition I don't think the article fits to the Title. The title itself is quite strange, since there are always new ideas in any scince, but then, since it is new its original research... RolteVolte (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, and as failing to have mutiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, thus failing notability.. Edison (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
an indiscriminate collection of information (No clear inclusion criteria. It is not clear what "new idea" means.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping an article with this title to be worthwhile, but when trying to go through the text I saw that it makes very little sense, and if somebody were to be interested in salvaging this somehow, they would have to do more work than is worth it. In addition, delete per wp:IINFO and wp:NOTESSAY.
Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - most of it is
original research. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -Is this article's title more suitable for a science news website thn an encylopedia?--Netheril96 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2010 (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.