Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level cosmology

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 speedily deleted by Dante Alighieri; see deletion log and the closing comments at the bottom of this debate. - Daniel.Bryant 10:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-level cosmology

Sounds like borderline nonsense, and is a non-notable alternate theory with no significant uptake. Link makes my eyes bleed. More articles to be added to this Afd shortly. Deranged bulbasaur 11:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added One-level universe. It seems Multi-level universe is being added elsewhere. Deranged bulbasaur 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-level universe has joined our tea party. Deranged bulbasaur 11:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reproducing the nominator's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level universe below. Sandstein 11:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be original research. The only source given is a personal webpage. Also, it's basically nonsense. Mycroft7 11:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. WP:NOR covers this, I think. Sandstein 11:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, clearly original research. This was actually a declined Article for Creation, so the author should have known better. (Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-02-03#Multi-Level Universe theory) Some of this is probably Scientology copyvio, compare MEST (Scientology) (not the content of that article but the subject... "MEST" is very probably a Scientology trademark or something, since they abuse copyright law so gleefully). — coelacan talk — 11:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I loved the theory :) , but Wikipedia is not the place for such original research. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mark Hucko is actually a linguist, not a cosmologist. If this is what he personally believes then that's for him, but there's nothing about it on google. nn. Totnesmartin 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page:

Notice to the wikipedia inquisitors: "Yes delete this article. The Earth is Flat! The Universe is Flat! Everybody knows that the universe is Flat and one-level! Burn Mark Hucko at stake!" What are you afraid of? That the universe is not flat and one-level? No it isn't. Let it stay, let anybody SCIENTIFICALLY prove that it is not correct. Give Columbus a chance!

pasted here by Totnesmartin 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the main article (something to consider?):

MODERN-DAY INQUISITION

As it was not possible for the people in the middle ages to imagine that the earth is not flat, it is just as impossible for the modern day inquisitors in the cosmology to accept the idea that [crazy]. It is just these limited minds of the inquisitors which have been suppressing the multi-level cosmological model and who have been erasing it from the search engines and from the Wikipedia. Just because the earth is flat - in their minds - it must be flat also in the minds of the rest of the world.

pasted by Mycroft7 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Number of valid ideas that have been ignored by the mainstream since 1500 A.D.: 37. Number of invalid, foolish, or crackpot ideas that have been ignored by the mainstream since 1500 A.D.: 3,213,756. One would think that someone who dabbles in cosmology understands the basics of hypothesis testing. ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Seriously now, the point is that we are deleting this article because it's not a notable theory, and not because we believe it's wrong. If this theory in the future gets a lot of media or academic attention (either by being correct or for being notably wrong), we would have an article about it. But not now. --Abu badali ^(talk) 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. We request authors to place a copyright release notice on their website. In this case the author has placed the deletion request - at the bottom of this page. -- RHaworth 13:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleted as per author request and community consensus. Also deleted the other associated articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:54, 14 February 2007 (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.