Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunt's Impact Theorem

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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt's Impact Theorem[edit]

Disputed prod. This theorem doesn't appear to have been published anywhere; multiple searches of Google Scholar failed to find the paper cited, or any other paper by the author. The fact that the page creator's name matches the supposed author's name suggests that this may be original research. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the only cited reference (The nature of crater depths and volumes) existed, one would expect some evidence of it to show up on Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar; but the title gets zero hits. Original research with no reliable sources, failing WP:NOT and WP:N. Deor (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite possibly a hoax, and in any event fails WP:V not to mention WP:N. The only google-hit[1] for the paper cited is the Wikipedia article. Nothing relevant in googlescholar or googlebooks for the name of the author. Nsk92 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 21:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does make one wonder whether Kieranmrhunt (talk · contribs) the creator of the article is any relation to the Kieran Hunt who purportedly invented this, and whether the "latter half of 2008" is in fact 2008-11-06, the day that the article was created. ☺ Please publish your original theorems in the proper places for such things, M. Hunt. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It is an encyclopaedia, not an academic journal. Uncle G (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I know this for a fact to be original research, being one of the students who shared Mr. Hunt's lab space. The research was in fact completed roughly 2 weeks ago. Whilst I commend his research and do believe he should take it to some sort of scientific journal website, it should most certainly not be on Wikipedia at this stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.6.24 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate that this is currently unverifiable, as the article is currently awaiting review for publication. If the article is to disappear, so be it. Kieranmrhunt (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is original research and that is not what Wikiepdia is for. Sorry. Do not "salt" the stub, so it can be re-created when it becomes notable and the subject of secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2008 (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.