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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well, it may or may not be a hoax but it would be better to revert to the version with content before discussing it. Drawn Some (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, original work, or a hoax. The article appears to be a hoax, but it could be just a non-notable term, or more likely, original research. Actually, it is a possibly useful concept or phrase, relevant to the theory of periodicity, so it should not be "salted". Bearian (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Comment - I repaired the stub and added tags. If someone else wants to rescue this stub, there is research out there -- see [1] and [2]. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the more I read, the more I am convinced this is a notable topic, but is a mess as written. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to write an article on. Also, totally unsourced. The google searches listed have nothing to do with "Quantum Fractals" as described as a "a new method of routing highly complex interconnected entities." Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this stuff is. The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System on the Harvard website[3] uses the term, but for something else perhaps? I didn't bother clicking on the main article, since I know nothing of this sort of thing. I see a government website with an article titled "Quantum fractal fluctuations". Something different than the theory the article suggest, perhaps? DreamFocus 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per unsourced, incomprehensible nonesense. It seems to be some kind of restatement of the Uncertainty principle but that's just a guess on my part; it doesn't make much sense.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quantum fractal seems to be a notable topic [4], but this article about the Quantum fractal is possibly original research. [5]Salih(talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, Salih. If the consensus of the community is to delete it, because it is too much of a mess, we may have to do so and wait until later to re-create a proper article. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are proper and substantial references - which there are not at present> NBeale (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is sensible physics here, but this requires a real expert. If the article has been completely rewritten based on the real stuff by the end of the AfD, then it should obviously be kept. I doubt it will happen though. Vesal (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a legitimate topic, not crank science. The Physical Review Letters citation should make that clear enough. However, I really don't know whether it's a notable concept, or whether the article is original research. Since the physics project was only contacted towards the end of this AfD, I would recommend extending the duration of this AfD (or relist it).Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tried to look up info on this. It does look like a real topic, but I can't understand head nor tail of it. I support Headbomb's suggestion of extending this AfD. Fences and windows (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really shouldn't comment if you can't be arsed to at least read the thing. The PRL article establishes this not a hoax. There's a load of improvement that could be made to this page, sure, and notability is currently undetermined. Glancing at a page, not understanding it, and declaring this as OR or hoax isn't how AfD should work. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while this might be an area of research, this article does nothing to explain it. It should not be kept just on the basis that someone might improve it from its currently speedyable state. The article as it stands is fundamentally useless, and editors should be allowed to work from a clean slate on this topic. Physchim62(talk) 13:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Requires another source to meet WP:N. Seems kind of suspect. Artw (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2009 (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.