The result was Speedy Keep--nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. --Itub (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents pseudophysics as though it were actual physics. The sources in the article, which are quite numerous, are nearly all from dubious publications. The subject of the article is obvious pseudoscience, and yet the article fails to present its subject as such (taking into account WP:UNDO and WP:FRINGE). The article fails to present sufficient reliable third-party sources (in English) demonstrating that the subject is a notable pseudoscience. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“ | These simple generators proved to be a powerful tool for a wide range of experiments:
|
” |