Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omniverse theory

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omniverse theory

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

I stubified the article [1] after seeing how bloated and repetitious it was. After removing content that failed verification, had dubious connection to the topic etc, the article is left as a stub, one which I can't find any sources for. Note, this article is not to be confused with the notable article Omniverse. Note that RIA university press is not an actual university press, but a place for self-publishing: [2]. Article was created by the creator of the fringe theory, or a co-worker: [3].

Fails WP:GNG, also fails the extra requirements of WP:FRINGE: A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. ... Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: Clearly non-notable with only a single Google Books hit and a single Google Scholar hit, the latter of which appears to be fringe blither of the worst sort. This is obviously a case of (self?)promotion, and the originators "theory" has simply generated no interest in the real-world scholarly community. This is apparently the second time the article was created. Suggest salting to prevent future reincarnation of patent promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don't look like much. HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single thing that I can find published on this subject that isn't written and published, with apparently zero peer review, by Charles Tandy. And that clearly includes this article itself. (In addition to the on-wiki evidence, Tandy has pointed to the article outwith Wikipedia.) This is a single-person's idea that has not escaped its creator, being written directly into Wikipedia, and is exactly the sort of subject and material that our Wikipedia:No original research policy prohibits. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-published. Not to be confused with the omniverse theory which was the one described in the earlier speedy deleted version of this article but no more notable. See this old version of my talk page[4]. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research with overtones of things I made up one day. The author of the article (and by extension, the author of the theory) (see here) is also politely reminded that the article is not yours once published here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2012 (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.