Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum gravity: the integral method

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum gravity: the integral method[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)

This article was based on creator's own original research, and when copyrighted content was removed by Diannaa, the article provides no context or references anymore. All previous edits by the creator up to now amounted to original research and/or references to own unpublished articles. DVdm (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion of unpublished fringe material. Total lack of notability. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Without content, I think it is a foregone conclusion. It is difficult to trace what this was, since the previous content has been hidden. Online searches find similarly named approaches by Hawking and relating to Feynman, which are presumably not directly connected. —Quondum 14:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quondum: The content (and the link to the creator's source) can still be found at User:Alexander_Klimets/Quantum_gravity._The_integral_method. Ping Diannaa: are copyviols allowed in userspace? If not, shouldn't that be removed as well? - DVdm (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for letting me know. I have removed the userspace copy.— Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry, Quondum, it's hidden too now...

. - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quondum: Yes, "path integral" is a standard term and might generate false positives. The content had been copied from here, an unpublished ramble that nobody has taken note of. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I'd found that, but failed to note the specific relevance because it is only in the last section. I concur that anything based on this would fail our notability requirements. —Quondum 16:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague and unreliably supported content.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsupported, unreferenced. At best maybe should be a comment on the main quantum gravity article, not a separate article itself. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2020 (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.