Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete with a slight dose of WP:SNOW. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity.[edit]

Malformed template placed on draft by @Heironymous Rowe:; I have no comment on merits of request. HR stated at WP:FTN that the draft qualifies for 6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 06:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical pseudoscientific rubbish in the domain of physics. No prospect at all for reliable sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incomprehensible faux-technobabble, sounds like it might’ve been written by a bot. Dronebogus (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only other contribution by the creating editor was more techno-babble at Talk:Hill's spherical vortex, since deleted. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incoherent. No point in keeping it around. XOR'easter (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringe science at best. More likely complete nonsense. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It has all been said above. —Quondum 15:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is perfectly worthless and incoherent, and there is no reason to keep it here. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although entertainingly unfathomable (e.g., "this person could stand on an electron," "this person is a size & time traveler"), this isn't even close to encyclopedic, and is utterly unsalvageable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...and retrive [sic] a part of that electron" Has Lmreva discovered a subdivision of the electron? Hand them the Nobel Prize right away! :) – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m calling this hitherto unheard-of fundamental particle the Lmreva (how do you pronounce that…?) Dronebogus (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lim-reh-var lettherebedarklight 晚安 03:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I pronounce it as /ɛl.ɛmˈreɪvə/. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - clearly not notable. --Bduke (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because of notability, but as Patent nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it’s clear this is never, ever going to garner a single keep vote, making this an unambiguous case of WP:SNOW. Since I obviously can’t delete this myself could an admin do it? Dronebogus (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability isn't necessarily a concern for drafts, but this page consists entirely of word salad that does not even vaguely resemble something that could become a complete article. Partofthemachine (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as closer to the stream of consciousness G1 word salad than the neologism or essay, the latter would have been allowed to stay in WP:NMFD until multiple resubmissions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is hogwash bordering on gibberish. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2023 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.