This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a clever vanity page. Not enough information to verify. Joke137 00:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Searches on google are mimimal - 25 hits, and most of them, except mirrors of Wikipedia itself, are not relevant to black holes. -- Natalinasmpf 01:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, theory makes no sense as well. Might have been writen by somebody with no grasp of how black holes function. humblefool® 02:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and refer to peer review. I've skimmed this before, and someone should be able to destubify it.
  • Vote by Almafeta. Hedley 02:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly vanity, possibly original research, doesn't matter anyway. Hedley 02:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as Stub|Physics with a Clean since is a little terse, and so unclear. Author cites reference (Book) so an appropriate scientific lit. search should generate a corrobatory paper (or five) for easy article elaboration/expansion. This is exactly the kind of new sci-theory arty that meets notable status, since only cosmologists and theoretical physicists would otherwise become familiar with the general knowledge this effort attempts to sketch for those of us in the land of the blind (with scant cosmological accumen). This years wikistub could lead to next years top sci-fi story because someone saw such an arty. Wiki could do worse things! Fabartus 05:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be true if it weren't made-up. No Andrew W Ross has published a paper in particle or astrophysics since abstracts started being stored in the spires and ads databases, around fifteen years ago. I could only find one paper, unrelated and from 1984, with ping pong in the title. No luck finding the book on Amazon. Google scholar doesn't turn up a thing. Joke137 13:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Wikipedia is not a repository for ideas or original research. It is an encyclopedia. --Xcali 06:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is no evidence this theory exists in earnest. Google only brings back content that references back to Wikipedia, so there's no established presence of it at all on the web. Ross has no books/articles for sale on Amazon, which would be atypical for an established physical sciences academic promoting a theory. A search of physics websites yielded two references to his name...one in association with a physics hoax affair called Sokal's Hoax and another in an online physics newsletter Virtual Physics. Both disparage Ross' academic competence (and we cannot be sure this is even the Andrew Ross being referenced in the article). Unless somebody can show a verifiable sources that this is legitimate, I'm afraid it appears to be bogus.Tobycat 06:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is garbage, folks. No journal citation given, and the phrase "black hole's quantum structure" used in this context is rank nonsense. -- Decumanus 06:53, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence. May as well take a look at Trip Ross while we're at it. Looks like vanity and by the same anon that did this one. hydnjo talk 15:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly hoax theory. Also probably vanity. Nestea 17:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 18:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 20:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be original research. --Carnildo 21:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. — Phil Welch 23:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified and probably nonsense. --Etacar11 23:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)d
• Delete - Tεxτurε 18:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.