Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life in infinium
Ramssiss, I want to clear up one thing. You may have been led astray by some of the comments directly or tangentially referring to the worth of the material by describing it as pseudoscience and otherwise commenting on its intrinsic merit. You keep arguing the material's value and asking us to disprove it in some manner, in the absence of which it should be kept. You're missing the point, though I don't blame you for that. But let me clarify that issue. If Wikipedia was somehow a going concern in 1905, and some patent clerk named Albert Einstein tried to first publish a scientific theory on a wikipedia page entitled "Annus Mirabilis Papers#Special relativity|On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," we would rightfully be arguing to delete that article because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, only publishing material already the subject of reliable independent secondary sources. We do not announce new things here. That is not the role of an encyclopedia. That paper would be |original research if attempted to be published here, would properly be deleted, and this would be so ''even in hindsight'', today, when that paper's place in the history of science was fully known
— User:Fuhghettaboutit, 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOR (Wikipedia:No original research)