Deletion of Inversion of logic in Schrödinger equation

Comment: As per nom and  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: if you have to do mathematics ''yourself'' to create the content for the page, as opposed to quoting someone else's math (from a peer-reviewed science paper), then that is a form of Original Research called |Synthesis (Anonymous IP address(es), I hope you take the time to read these links).  If theorists are not speaking about something, then it is not |Notable, and thus doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  You may think it sucks that Wikipedia can't host everything, but "Wikipedia is |Verifiability, not truth".  No one is doubting that a phenomena exists, we doubt that any |reputable sources are writing about it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:N||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Obvious OR. If "the theorists avoid to speak about" then so must Wikipedia, as our standard for inclusion is |verifiability, not truth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VER)

Comment: This article is a mixture of something in a standard textbook which the editor is not putting into proper perspective and a fringe theory which no serious scientist would say solves this "so called" paradox. The material covered by the second reference is frankly |complete bollocks and it has no notability even as fringe science
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BALLS)

Comment: as |original research, or redirect to Time Cube
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Whoever keeps making comments about this article being mathematical and therefore not research is missing the point.  The  policy is not designed to prevent editors from gathering data and drawing conclusion from them.  It is not designed to enjoin editors against a specific activity.  It is designed to prevent material that is novel and unique from being introduced into wikipedia.  So, even though the proof that (for example) ''e'' is irrational requires nothing more than knowledge and applications of the properties of real numbers, it does not belong in wikipedia unless we are summarizing a treatment from an outside source.  The inherent validity of the claim is not what makes it research or not.  Empirical claims are no different from theoretical claims as far as wikipedia is concerned--even though there is a gulf between them philosophically.  You seem to be capable of understanding the mathematical implications of these articles, so let's make sure you can understand the implications of our arguments.  Your defense is based on an incorrect connotation of the word research.  You interpret research to mean non-tautological results from empirical data.  For one, that isn't strictly true.  For another thing, that is not how wikipedia defines research.  I know I'm being repetitive, but I need to make sure this point is clear.  If I need to be even more elementary, let me.  the research is not the creation of the theoretical result (in this case, the paradox) from axioms.  The research is the revelation of that result to the world.  Regardless of the inherent truth of any theoretical claim, someone, somewhere has to reveal it.  The policy of wikipedia is that the revelation not occur here first.  Provide a clear, cited source that reveals the paradox and shows that it is notable, then you can keep the article.  Until then, no dice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)