Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ploegmakers Publications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7. - KrakatoaKatie 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ploegmakers Publications

Ploegmakers Publications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)Article purports to be some kind of novel theory of science and creation in which the universe came into existance one dimension at a time, and then these merged.

Already tagged by other users as WP:OR, which I agree with. Appears to be self-published. Prodded by others, and prod removed as author claims it has been "published elsewhere", but in fact the site linked to doesn't seem to show any especial evidence that it's more than what it seems - a fringe concept with either author-only or tiny-minority interest at best.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm fairly familiar with the field having edited a lot on cosmology and the Big Bang, and co-authored metric expansion of the universe. This article reads like a novel theory. In the introduction the article author states:

"Number of publications made on Wikipedia by Jeroen Ploegmakers from The Netherlands that contain new insights and findings from the author as investigator himself in Astronomy, Quantummechanics and Cosmology...."

Either this is 1/ genuine science dressed up very poorly in a rambling essay format that goes nowhere, or 2/ it's a snip from genuine science which is used to build rambling OR, or 3/ its pure OR.

Policies which this seems to falls foul of:

  1. WP:NOT a publisher of OR
  2. WP:N apparent lack of notability and WP:NOT a publisher of tiny fringe articles
  3. Apparent self-promotion of own publications and website WP:COI / WP:SPAM.
  4. Lack of WP:RS reliable sources
  5. Lack of WP:V verifiability to independent credible sources
  6. Possible WP:CSD / WP:AFD "patent nonsense"
  7. WP:CSD / WP:AFD no assertion of importance/significance
  8. Possible WP:HOAX?

A case of WP:SNOW?

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, this article, whether the content is true or not, is just a place where someone claiming to be a scientists posts his theories and findings. WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:V all apply, perhaps other as well. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's arguments. Jakew 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It hurts to read this. The title of the article has nothing to do with the content (it would allude to a publishing company), and what this appears to be is a repository for things that Mr. Ploegmaker once stuck on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is absolutely, positively NOT for this! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR, and all the other above reasons. Sxeptomaniac 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete on so many levels. OR, bollocks, you name it. Realkyhick 19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes. WP:BOLLOCKS too, I forgot that one. Probably ran out of space to list it. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - given my comments and the nom's blurb, is it possible that I can pull WP:COATRACK out as well? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As per WP:OR. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per the nominators very thorough reasoning. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The only question is whether it can be speedied. Perhaps as WP:SPAM? Leibniz 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Once on AfD, it should be closed per procedure. Bearian 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
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.