Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structural quantum gravity Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Structural_quantum_gravity

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. postdlf (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structural quantum gravity

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

violation of WP:SOURCE,WP:IRS,WP:SPS,WP:NOR,WP:IMPORTANCE Paspaspas (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Causes for deletion:

relies only on a single source, which is not peer-reviewed (WP:SOURCE, WP:IRS, WP:SPS).
grammar errors indicate that the author of the wikipedia article is the same as of the source; like e. g. "May be..." is used frequently in both documents. In other words: the author tries to exploit the wikipedia-page as a place for his publication and advertising his 'theory' (WP:NOR).
the wikipedia-article is just a sequence of technical expressions, which lack connection. From an expert's point of view the reference is not comprehensible as per now; even if additional sources are used it simply makes no sense.
notability of this article is rather questionable, since no third-party source is using the expression 'structural quantum gravity' or refering to the topic (WP:IMPORTANCE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paspaspas (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of the independent sources needed for WP:NPOV and failure to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per absence of sources on GS. -- 202.124.73.12 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not widely covered and therefore not notable per WP:GNG. Seems to try to present a theory not widely accepted, and seems to using Wikipedia as a platform for wider dissemination. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 6 July 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.