Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrocarpum laws of astronomy

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macrocarpum laws of astronomy[edit]

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

Delete The article consists entirely of the self-published original research of an A. M. Ilyanok. There are no sources establishing the credibility or notability of the work. The claim that the supposed laws link gravity with electromagnetism is not supported. Neither is the claim that the "speed of gravitational waves is considerably exceed speed of light and gives possibility to create Galactic Internet". Pontificalibus (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the rest of the scientific community has even noticed it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research; no independent sources; no evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- All the author has done is take the values of certain physical constants and then rearranged them in various ways until he gets close fits to observed quantities. Give me any eight to ten different numbers, such as my phone number, date of birth, etc. and I can do the same thing. This "theory" is madeup bollocks, and a search for either "Metaquantum laws of astronomy" or "Metacarpum laws of astronomy" provides nothing but Wikipedia and its mirrors. Clearly this is just an attempt to promote a particularly stupid bit of pseudoscientific balderdash. Reyk _YO! 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love science fiction, but this is not the place for it. Dloh cierekim 00:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first three are interesting, but the rest are just idiotic. Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is yet another fringe topic and there is no evidence that it has achieved any notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's worse than non-notable. It is numerology masquerading as something resembling science. 70.109.186.180 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC) (You don't wanna know who I am.)[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.