Deletion of Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion

Comment: A while back, there was an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heisenberg's_paradox|Heisenberg's paradox and this looks like the same material.  (In fact, the author http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heisenberg%27s_paradoxical_criterion&diff=208773450&oldid=208209623 identifies himself as, in essence, a meatpuppet of the banned user who created that one.)  As before, neither Google (Books, Scholar, or just a straight search), Academic Search Premiere, nor JSTOR knows anything about it, so delete as |OR.  I'd recommend speedy deletion as A4, except that I don't have access to the original page so I can't be certain this is the same
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Aspects of old material spun up with a novel and utterly non-notable analysis, precisely what the previously-mentioned-here {{user|W.GUGLINSKI}} was blocked for performing non-stop. Maybe Guglinski could have made this clear to you, seeing he was blocked precisely for ignoring numerous warnings of it, but unless a theory or analysis has received coverage in independent |reliable sources (i.e. peer-reviewed journal articles that neither you nor your friends had anything to do with), it is going to be deleted. Citing Dirac and Heisenberg isn't going to get you anywhere as they're ''probably'' not publishing anymore, and Guglinski's papers are worthless as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned. Or maybe you ''are'' Guglinski. Either way, I hope I've made this pretty clear
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: WP:OR|original research by a '''banned''' user using |sockpuppets or meatpuppets.  It actually sounds Strange but true|not too far fetched, but is certainly |novel, and I might actually find a bit of truthiness in the piece.  But that is |not what WP is about.   The creator should privately publish this work elsewhere, and pay for it, just like real business people do, or submit it to a referreed journal, just like real scientists do.  Wikipedia is a charity -- and it is not the place to make a would-be Nobel Prize winner any money
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK||WP:SYNTH||WP:NOT)

Comment: clearly a novel synthesis of ideas at best.  This is textbook  and should be deleted forthwith
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)