Deletion of Roxy's Ruler

Comment: There doesn't appear to be evidence that this method has been demonstrated or applied in any refereed publications to date, so there is no evidence of notability at this stage.  An AAS conference abstract doesn't count as a reliable source per  because these abstracts are not vetted or refereed: it just means that the authors presented this as a contributed conference presentation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP)

Comment: Article should have never been allowed to have been made in the first place. Was it an  submission or was the user given creation rights
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for creation (WP:AFC)

Comment: The "keep" arguments seem to be primarily ,  and , which in my opinion are not sufficient enough to overcome  and . Perhaps as some have pointed out, there will more written about this in reliable sources in the (near) future, but the mainspace's purpose is not (once again in my opinion) to act as an incubator for "articles" about subjects which might someday be the subject of . Nobody has suggested this yet,  or  might be worth considering if there's a strong feeling that this might someday be notable; the creator or anyone else interested in doing so can continue to work on imroving and adding citations to reliable sources. Then, it can be submitted for  review if or when the concerns expressed in this AfD have been addressed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (:WP:VALINFO||:WP:ITSUSEFUL||:WP:EFFORT||:WP:NOR||:WP:TOOSOON||:WP:SIGCOV||:WP:DRAFTIFY||:WP:USERFY||:WP:AFC)

Comment: This is a textbook case of the type of |original research which is prohibited from Wikipedia by policy. Mention by a fringe scientist in a dubious journal such as the Journal of Cosmology does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. WikiHow may be an entertaining and Interesting website but it is most definitely not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, since it consists of user-submitted content without professional editorial review
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)