Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced wave

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. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced wave[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual energy the first half of the article cover material elsewhere, but starting in section 4.4 Mutual Energy Theorem it become WP:OR based on the work of S Zhao which have very few citations. Salix alba (talk): 18:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to be "original" research on the merest technicality: it was published elsewhere but pretty much totally ignored. (Justifiably.) It's not science, and it's not notable non-science. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same problems as with Mutual energy: lots of duplication of material better presented elsewhere, lots of OR, and fractured English makes it really hard to assess what (if anything) is salvageable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly incoherent gobbledegook. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Draft - Indeed from same barrel as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mutual_energy
The only reason I'm saying "Draft", instead of "Delete", is to provide the author with an uncomplicated path to save his work (which does appear to have taken some time to concoct). -- DexterPointy (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and do not draftify). To the extent that this is not just buzzword/equation salad, with classical references thrown in haphazardly to make it look important, it appears to be original research. Certainly it is not of any use to readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per XOR'easter --Steve (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an interesting and thought-provoking topic. Vorbee (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of crap is interesting but also original research or fringe science as is this stuff. A notable, Nobel-award-wining paper would be possible, but this ain't it. I would fail a student who submitted this junk science. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As perBearian. The content here is not what people often talk when discussing advanced potential solutions, it could be considered WP:BOLLOCKS.--MaoGo (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not draftify. Hoo boy. Apart from being original research, this is, as MaoGo said, utter and complete bollocks. The early sections contain (very) badly rehashed real science, and later ones contain fringe rubbish. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:04, 17 July 2018 (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.