Deletion of Observer-centered formalism

Comment: WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a publisher of |original thought
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: except for the one reference in the article (which is published by the author of the article) I don't see any proof that this isn't |original thought.  '''~a
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Sorry, the paper is interesting (look out — there are a few spelling errors on names), but like everyone else's original idea, it will have to be recognized by 3rd parties before it can be in Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how strong the original idea is; it really doesn't. Please read 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: no notability demonstrated in a |reliable secondary source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The meaning of "original research" on Wikipedia is quite unlike a physicist's understanding of the term. Here, if challanged, edits have to be supported by references to published reliable sources. The reference given, by itself, does not meet  requirements. As such, the entire article is unsatisfactory. At the present time Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for such material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: OCF introduces a mathematical object Я describing the Observer and suggests that the laws of physics must explicitly include Я. The observable laws are therefore different for different observers and different branches of Physics might become asymptotic idealisations corresponding to Я-functions that are orthogonal, and thus can not be observed simultaneously.'' Sokal hoax|Mr. Sokal, |is that you
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (WP:NONSENSE)