The result was delete. / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
All sources are to one author, which calls the credibility of this article (and the hypothesis behind it) into question. notability is dubious too, and the creator is essentially a single-purpose account. This looks like fringe science to me, especially given that Planck-sized black holes like those mentioned here are usually believed to be highly unstable (due to Hawking radiation), not "eternally living" as claimed here. Stonemason89 ( talk) 04:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
All sources are to one author, which calls the credibility of this article (and the hypothesis behind it) into question. notability is dubious too, and the creator is essentially a single-purpose account. This looks like fringe science to me, especially given that Planck-sized black holes like those mentioned here are usually believed to be highly unstable (due to Hawking radiation), not "eternally living" as claimed here. Stonemason89 ( talk) 04:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply