Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How blackholes give information back

Original research. Also, misspelled title. Gdr 18:36, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

Agree. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Now if this guy had come up with driver software enabling me to use a black hole as a storage device, I would be otherwisely minded. As is: "I published a new analytic thought-experiment on blackholes, (...) 2004 in my actual website". Delete from actual Wikipedia as OR. Ianb 20:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but before you do, can somebody contact the guy and talk to him about how to contribute more effectively? Don't bite the newcomers and all. His website linked in the article has his email address. Sorry I can't do it, no access to email atm. - Taxman 20:32, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Josh Cherry 23:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Dmr2 11:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Original research Delete. Average Earthman 13:22, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 29, 2004. Expose it to a serious review among all of you. My title is well choosen: It means to explain the derivations of how information can be given back from backholes as "dark energy". This is a hot issue in astronomy and physics, right now. Therefore read the press release on my website and study the derivation given in " thought experiment". And also "bijlage 1" (in dutch), referring to the formula I bring foreward in this dicussion, dated from 1999. You can reach me at the email-addres: [dan.visser@planet.nl]. Be aware: Hawking can't tell anything about "dark energy". And I bring up a relation between "giving information back from blackholes and "dark energy". Moreover, Hawking hasn't published his claim yet and I already did in my website and to this board of critici. Keep it in discussion and give it a chance in reviewing. Sincerely Dan Visser, the author of the article.

Delete - original research - Tεx τ urε 20:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete - original research and signed first-person essay. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:41, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dan, it may well be that your proposal is sound and that your theoretical reasoning is on track. However, Wikipedia is not a place to posit. It is a place for =what is known to be true= to be published. Stephen Hawking himself could not post an article here on new thinking regarding black holes. Original research is precisely that, and it is not Wikipedia's job or desire to act as peer editor or referee. Please do not see this as a rejection of your work. It is not. It is simply that what you propose to place in Wikipedia is non-encyclopedic in nature. But it would be wonderful if you could submit an article on what is currently known and generally accepted to be true about our ability to derive information from a black hole. Denni ☯ 02:04, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)