Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Format physics

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. Mandsford 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Format physics

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

Contested prod. Let us be kind and just call it "original research". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be WP:OR or possibly WP:HOAX violations. Can't anything about it. Nothing mentioned in Google Books. scope_creep (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR and WP:FRINGE seem to apply here. No reliable sources to indicate otherwise. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle Dick. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extraordinary claims need reliable sources; lots of the former, none of the latter.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uh.... interesting stuff. If it had a few references (or even a single one) I might change my mind. Zane Murphy (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:OR and WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 31 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.