Deletion of Superbradyon (2nd nomination)

Comment: per original nom, , , , and (based on doing a little checking on the WHOIS of all the IP editors) 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:PRIMARY||WP:FRINGE||WP:CANVASSING)

Comment: and salt. term used by one person. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP)

Comment: Fails |notability requirements - specifically lack of coverage by secondary |reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: The rule is, on wikipedia, we only discuss things from |reliable independent secondary sources, not primary sources. The only thing in |reliable independent secondary sources, as far as I can see, is "González-Mestres has proposed a theory about Lorentz violations with the goal of explaining high-energy cosmic rays". Everything else in the article, i.e. almost every single sentence in the article, is not based on |reliable independent secondary sources. (For example, someone please show me a |reliable independent secondary source, e.g. a widely-used physics textbook, that discusses the role of superbradyons in non-cyclic pre-Big Bang cosmologies.) Now, don't get me wrong, this is fine content, and it can be written about on a google knol, a blog post, or whatever, but definitely not as a separate article on wikipedia. It can also be mentioned in a few words, or a sentence, or a footnote, in Lorentz_covariance#Lorentz_violation. (I also agree that it should be '''salted''' to prevent re-creation without prior approval, since this is its second deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: I currently count fourteen "Delete" !votes, all policy-based. "Keep" !votes are much more difficult to count because of the obvious |meatpuppetry and arguable |sockpuppetry, but none of those calling for the article to be kept have brought up any supporting arguments other than what amounts to jumping up and down and pointing at a |self-published source and screaming "See, it's RIGHT THERE!". And the one -- count them, ONE -- non-IP user who is most insistent about keeping the article is |wikilawyering in the hopes of getting an admin to throw the entire discussion out
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:MEATPUPPET||WP:SOCKPUPPET||WP:SPS||WP:WIKILAWYER)