Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holeum

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. ✗plicit 03:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holeum[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)

Fails WP:GNG, lacking coverage in multiple independent sources. The article is mostly sourced to the authors themselves; the exceptions are [1], which merely cites the original paper in a long list without talking about it, and [2][3]. These articles do talk about it, but both are from the same author, so it's not enough to get multiple independent sources. I did search a bit for papers mentioning the idea, and found plenty unpublished or published in predatory journals, but nothing else respectable.

And come on, studying a gravitationally bound state of two microscopic black holes using Newtonian gravity and non-relativistic quantum mechanics? Tercer (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tercer (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The original paper also uses the inappropriate non-relativstic framework as well. For two Planck mass black holes (the conjectured smallest possible) in a bound positronium-like state, Newtonian gravity plus non-relativistic QM would give a speed that is exactly one-half the speed of light and a Bohr radius equal to the Schwarzschild radius of each black hole (2 Planck lengths), so the mathematical approach in this article (and the original paper!) are invalid, and we must instead use some theory of quantum gravity to understand this hypothetical system. No wonder the paper has only 9 citations. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEO. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion. When the only reliable, independent sources that Google Scholar can turn up are unrelated geology papers thanks to OCR errors for "petroleum", it's a bad sign. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2021 (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.