Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vortex Science

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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Vortex Science

Vortex Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Pseudoscience essay. Sammy1339 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Pseudoscience, no reliable sources. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:SOAP, as well as WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 18:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Added sources. This theory is experimentally and mathematically falsifiable. Please people read the work and place in scientific/mathematical rebuttal, rather than straw man attacks. Derenek (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:SOAP, as well as WP:GNG, and we already have an article on the peer reviewed science of a Vortex. Waters.Justin (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about vortices, it's more like an alternative Theory of everything.  —SMALLJIM  10:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. For all I can tell, we may be turning away the next Einstein here. But it's not within Wikipedia's remit to publish new information. The theory would warrant an article once it's been discussed by enough reliable sources.  —SMALLJIM  10:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks secondary sources, unencyclopedic essay style, unclear how the recently added bibliography supports the subject. If this new theory of everything gains traction in respected journals, then it can find a place in Wikipedia. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of contributors own theories. And no, we are not obliged to provide a 'rebuttal' to anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. This is literally the sort of thing the WP:NOR policy was invented for - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Delete. It's nothing put web book or essey from asia (Ether South Korea or Japan) got into wikipedia for very unknown odd reason, That got to say here. 2606:A000:85E7:4E00:15E4:5BF8:3755:5704 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOR. Tiptoety ^talk 19:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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.