The result was keep. SNOW. DGG (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80% of the article is OR, the rest is highly speculative synthesis from related research. absolutely riven with bad science. not a single research paper discussing the topic is cited. bad stylistically - wikipedia is not a place for personal essays. even the title is not widely used in scientific discussion on the topic. fictional refs and other fictional discussion has it's own page Jw2035 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE! DELETE! - As others have said. A bunch of random psuedoscience and un-attributed rubbish. Simmons001 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - for reasons above. Jw2035 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]