Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micheal space

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. — Aitias // discussion 00:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal space

Original research, appears to be repost of AFD'd essay WP:Articles for deletion/Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature, unreliable references. MuffledThud (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research being posted by its creator (see talk page). No independent references. (Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature was by the same author but different text.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits on Google scholar to establish notability, and few independent ones on the standard Google search. ("Michael Space" gets a few hits, but doesn't appear to be the same thing at all). Anaxial (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that this has ever been published in reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, original complaint addressed in talk for article, refs added, notability and published complaints: we've established that i'm nobody. i cannot argue that. but.. as argued on the talk page, viable alternatives to the standard model should stay up especially when they question the enormous resources allocated for Higgs detection such as the LHC. the public has a right to know the level of uncertainty associated with such endeavors. this page not only does that - it provides a viable alternative to standard model assumptions. the issue of notability and published (yes or no) is not especially relevant here. Dr. Stephen Hawking has been asked to intervene (give his professional opinion). why don't we wait for that and some results from the LHC. a single page of text cannot take up that much server space considering the worth and potential benefit to physics.&Delta (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (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.