Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum onion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum onion[edit]
Tagged as a speedy deletion, but doesn't quite fir any existing criterion. Brought here for more open examination. Abstain for now. brenneman{T}{L} 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I apologize for using the wrong tag. I was trying to indicate that it should probably be moved or merged to the proper wiki. (Perhaps the Wiki Dictionary). --Aking 02:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Transfer to Wiktionary, or rewrite it so it doesn't read like a dictionary entry. Royboycrashfan 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - When posting the article (that went instantly to rapid deletion) I had intended on making the term "quantum onion" the core element of an article on modeling of hard problems. As it was my first wiki post on my own, I was not aware of the rapid delete. It makes me not want to finish and submit the real article. Why bother? I don't need the PubCred. Perhaps the rapid delete could just (as Aking wrote) move the material to another wiki or the wiki dictionary.] [[[User:Neutronmd|neutron]] 02:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)]
- Delete. "Newt love" admits it's his personal neologism, right at the bottom above where he charmingly signs the article. This encyclopedia isn't for that kind of thing. Ikkyu2 02:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism per Ikkyu2. The user even admits that he coined it and hadn't seen it elsewhere! Just because a neologism is old doesn't mean it's remarkable.Changed to speedy, see below.Rory09603:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Rory09619:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete admitted original research Ruby 03:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. --Terence Ong 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original reseach, doesn't need a dicdef either. 'Quantum onion' has been used scientifically [1] with another meaning, but that's not worth an article either. -- Mithent 13:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
" Delete I'm the original submitter. Please delete it. BTW, an Interent search for the term has references to a music studio and their products, and to recent U-Mainz technique for the formulation of semiconductor crystals for nanotechnology, neither of which are concerned with abstract modeling classes. [[[User:Neutronmd|neutron]] 15:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)]
- In that case, I change my vote to Speedy delete G7- author requests deletion. --
Rory09619:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a quantum onion? I've never heard of it. StarTrek 05:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and author. feydey 14:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Arbustoo 01:01, 13 February 2006 (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.