Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniscience

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 speedy delete as a hoax per WP:G3 and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uniscience

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

I wanted to speedy delete it, but don't know under what basis. There are already articles on Wikipedia which contain info on the attempts at the unification of the foundamental forces for example. And + the article title is bogus. Don't know what can be salvaged..., nothing... RobertMel (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOTDIC, WP:MADEUP and probably WP:OR. PDCook (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add WP:BOLLOCKS to the list, for: "Such a model would be required to truly understand theories such as Intelligent Design" -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I haven't seen the WP:BOLLOCKS essay. Very nice! PDCook (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all above and probably also Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Suggest WP:SNOW closure. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could have tried speedy deletion under nonsense, but I thought this was reserved to more obvious nonsense. Having to submit it for deletion is ridiculous, I don't see who in his right mind could vote keep. It was either this or requesting deletion vis WP:PROD, but giving 7 days is also ridiculous. -RobertMel (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete : WP:G3. See [1]. — Rankiri (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just submitted it. I should have tried that prior to wasting others time. Sorry -RobertMel (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2010 (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.