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 Kaliamboslef (talk · contribs) and the article cites papers by one Lefteris A. Kaliambos, do rather make that case, as indeed does the title of the article. I've been unable to find the second (2003) and third (2008) papers, but given that the abstract of the first (1994) and second papers match the abstracts that I have found, I conclude that this is just three papers by Kaliambos, one published and two apparently unpublished (the 2003 paper, like the 1994 paper, having been presented at a conference; but, unlike the 1994 paper, not published as far as I can tell), that didn't garner any attention in the world at large, being dumped into Wikipedia in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. 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 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or 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 sythesis or bollocks. There are snippets of interesting ideas that should be merged elsewhere, e.g., "Faraday ... observed in 1846 that the magnetic field B changes the plane of polarization of light, since B exerts a torque on a moving dipole." Much of the rest appears to be a coatrack to showcase a fan's appreciation for a non-notable physicist's outdated 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.