Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stachnikov's triflexian quantum multiplex 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stachnikov's triflexian quantum multiplex theorem[edit]

Page is made up. "Stachnikov" gives only 2 (unrelated) google hits, no record of book on Amazon. See also listing of Stachnikov below. -- SCZenz 05:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Searching arXiv and Google show that terms biflexian, triflexian and quantum multiplex are unknown to physics. If this is not a hoax article, it appears to concern a very cranky 'theory' [sic] unknown to science. So delete ~~as patent nonsense.~~---CH (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- patent nonsense is content that is irredemably incomprehensible, which this is not. (Note that hoax articles are explicitly excluded from the definition.) The phrase that describes what you are talking about is either "original research" or "unverifiable". Uncle G 14:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - An admin should perhaps compare User:Lionosmom with 155.198.78.191 since the latter IP addy has just been used to make very similar edits to the articles in question, but previously was used to vandalize National Science Foundation; check the contribs of this anon! A Google search on Lionosmom is also suggestive regarding this persons reasons for coming to Wikipedia. Admins should probably monitor this user and this IP addie for further problems and possible blocking---CH (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only developers can check whether an IP address is associated with a pseudonym. Administrators have just comparison of the contributions histories to go by, just like everyone else. The edit from the anonymous account was 6 months ago, and is not necessarily the same person, especially as the IP address belongs to a University. Uncle G 17:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, UncleG, but do a Google search on Lionosmom.---CH (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a good example of nonsense to me. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not, however, patent nonsense. Uncle G 14:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, as above William M. Connolley 09:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, I haven't had time to fully evaluate this, but the ISBN is incorrect, according to http://www.isbn-check.de/checkisbn.pl?isbn=5529476913 . -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources (The article lists a book, but Albrecht Folsing has written no such book according to five book sources.), and research turns up nothing. The claim in the article that "Stachnikov" wrote "a paper a year" is belied by the fact that no-one seems to be able to find any papers at all. This and Stachnikov (AfD discussion) appear to be part of a pattern of hoax articles, with the link to Albrecht Folsing an attempt to make them plausible. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 14:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ejrrjs | What? 17:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete linas 18:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Peter Grey 02:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Karol 11:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable --Kgf0 17:19, 3 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.