Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 August 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Mkativerata (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity

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

Wikipedia does not publish original research. No secondary sources are cited; the only references to this term I can find originate from the article author, I.R.Bhattacharjee (talk · contribs). Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incoherent pseudoscientific gibberish. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anyone not immediately convinced that this is sheer crankery is invited to consult with the author's blog. I don't think anything else needs to be said. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no Pubmed hits for "intrinsic gravity" and the only hits for "self-gravity" refer to star formation. This seems to be an article based on the unpublished ideas of a single author. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR, not reliably sourced. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable speculation, tied to writings of the apparent author of the article. Convince the scientific world that the gravitational attraction of the human body components for each other is significant and get discussion of this in reliable publications by other scientists, then let someone else create an article. Edison (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a non-notable spin of astrology and original research. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have nominated the related Category:Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity for deletion as well. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no original research, as article creator has indicated it is. if any of this sourced material is in peer reviewed journals, i suppose it may be relevant in an appropriate article somewhere, but only if the editor can slow down the caffeine consumption and explain at those articles before adding the references, in plain english, what the hell hes talking about.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a student of Electronics engineering at Politechnico Di Torino, Italy i beleive that author has presented an article to which future researches are awaiting. The way biological science and gravitational engineering has been merged is simply amazing. A stochastic analysis through various modelling technique of the evident facts is required. A time space analysis of biological facts and then windowing of the those Statistical data's from the various biological phenomenon are being currently undertaken as an interdisciplinary subject in various renowned universities and research laboratories. So the article provides a scope for establishment of many seen and unseen biological facts. Rajan Kashyap (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC) — Rajan Kashyap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2010 (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.