Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megacycles

From Cleanup: Megacycles, unwikfied, incomprehensible

What significance? As is, just definition. --Davout 12:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
POV issues "Geologists agreed that..." Nanocycles method *internal inconsitency ("586.2385 million years" from a calculation accurate to +/-0.03 million years?
Google gives 4 hits for Megacycles Nanocycles ...
we may be in tinfoil hat territory, tonto --Tagishsimon
Sounds very fishy. If you type nanocycles in amazon, the only hit you get is the science fiction book 'cradle' by A.C. Clark *grin*. Here is the quote

After exiting from the dive into the thick atmosphere, the interstellar voyager covers the final distance to its target in a leisurely six hundred nanocycles.

But that is not very fair, at least his reference is for sale at Amazon (Megacycles: Long-Term Episodicity in Earth and Planetary History). And some of the other references he quotes on his web page [1] are also real books. It still looks like pseudo-science though. But perhaphs if the articles on megacycles and nanocycles are merged and npoved it is well known enough to warrant a page. (btw, this material is also added to cycles). Sander123 13:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Delete: unsubstantiated original research. User:RayTomes seems to be a really nice guy but he certainly has an agenda to push [2]. I have read of vague suggestions of very long-term cycles in geologic history, but "geologists agree" is wishful thinking, and to claim the period of the cycle has been determined to 7 decimal places is simple crankery. Until a middle-of-the-road geologist comes by to write about these vague cycles, I'm willing to live without this article. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I worry a bit about anything Ray Tomes submits... he once mentioned himself as a significant researcher in an article. Isomorphic 07:56, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. He may be thinking of the periodic waves of extinction but this article doesn't mention anything like that. ping 08:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)