Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Quantum Theory

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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Quantum Theory

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

No sign of notability. Can't find any sources other than the obscure primary one given. (Obscure as in journal not listed in Web of Knowledge.) — HHHIPPO 21:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — HHHIPPO 21:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced crankery. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It's junk like this that makes me realize why we require reliable secondary sources for research results. It's too easy to get nonsense published in unscrupulous journals. Anyway, I think WP:FRINGE covers this: it goes against the scientific consensus and has no mainstream sources explaining that fact, therefore we are unable to cover it in a sufficiently neutral fashion, so we should not cover it at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, this is a fringe theory (WP:FRINGE) in that goes against scientific mainstream with respect to quantum mechanics and electrodynamics and apparently has few adherents. Even as a fringe theory, there is only a single primary source and no independent sources on which to base an article The article also makes exceptional claims about mainstream theories, e.g., quantum mechanics cannot explain phenomena such as interference, but provides no exceptional evidence for such assertions, failing WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The article fails notability and verifiability guidelines and should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the non-notability, much of it is a verbatim copy of the cited paper,[1] e.g. the section

A photon has a nucleus ... Spinning speed is proportional to the frequency & energy of photon and inversely proportional to the wavelength

--Colapeninsula (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, a non-notable fringe theory.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable WP:FRINGE. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (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.