Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potential mass interpretation

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential mass interpretation[edit]

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

Contested prod. Of the two sources for the article, one is a self-published source (Aventine Press). The other, although published in a peer reviewed journal, has received zero citations according to google scholar. The author of the article removed the prod and replied that it is deserving of coverage on Wikipedia as a minority interpretation of quantum mechanics. Obviously, this is a minority of one. There are no google scholar or google books hits for the term "Potential mass interpretation". The only google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. The subject of the article seems to be insufficiently notable, as would be evidenced by coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject and its sole author. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nominator. WP is not the place to publish original theories. Borock (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:NOR. Lack of good secondary sources. --Salix (talk): 17:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete agree with nominator - insuffciient evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, seems a bit like original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The originator of this interpretion does not appear to have any academic affiliation, and the journal in which it is published seems to specialise in publishing speculative papers. This may turn out to be the equivalent of work by an employee of the Swiss Patent Office published in 1905, or may turn out to be a very minor footnote in the history of fringe ideas in physics, but until we have reliable sources saying one or the other we can't have an article about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2011 (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.