I am sorry you had a negative experience on Wikipedia, at least so far. Please come and talk to those of us "pro-science" types that can be found at [1] and a few other venues.--Filll (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated the article Myrzakulov equations for deletion here. I have also left a notification on your most recently used IP in case you don't see this. --Random832 (contribs) 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to comment on your statement about "if the conclusion about retaining/deleting articles that have been found by experts in the field to be unsuitable" - the problem is, the AFD isn't just for deciding on _this_ article (which may indeed have been unsuitable), it is deciding on whether there should be an article on the topic at all. And even being outright incorrect, if that is the case, is not a reason to not have an article about it - we have articles on Phlogiston theory, Luminiferous_aether, to show the historical context of those concepts.
What matters isn't whether it's _right_, what matters is if people care. If the theories are incorrect the article can say that they're incorrect. --Random832 (contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone called my attention to the argument you've been involved in. If it makes you feel the slightest bit better, this kind of thing, and worse, seem to be part of Wikipedia. Here's something I wrote about it:
Mercer, J. (2007). Media Watch: Wikipedia and "open source" mental health information. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, Vol. 5 (3), 88-92.
In my case, I kept on because I felt it was important that people looking for mental health information not be misled, and eventually, with a lot of help, things worked out. But many Wiki editors have all the time in the world to practice "the cult of the amateur", so it doesn't always happen that way. Jean Mercer (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)