Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Space Theory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Space Theory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A new theory of the universe probably being promoted by its creator. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —RJH (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—At the current time, this topic doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. There are a few mentions in journal articles only. Hence I can't support a keep.—RJH (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Independent of this author I have also read or seen this theory mentioned in books or on television shows. The author of this article probably did not invent Quantum Space Theory. The author has provided several references to where this theory can be found. There are some very notable theoretical physicists that support this theory such as Petr HoYava. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting idea, but it may be too undeveloped or too new for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Could be made a lot better and more info added to it. It is in a sorry state at the moment. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as junk science unless shown otherwise. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - The billions spent on Large Hadron Collider to find a single particle that might confirm at least an aspect of Quantum Space Theory the Higgs Boson.String theory and quantum mechanics may just be theories, however, to call it Junk science is a bit harsh. Every theoretical physicist in the world is looking for proof of multiple planes of existence. Have a look at this it may help explain it to the non-initiated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBrIBs3YRWI Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The few sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches linked in the nomination are just accidental juxtapositions of these three words - nothing to do with any theory that posits two time dimensions. Similarly the irrelevancies brought up above about Petr Hořava, the Large Hadron Collider, the Higgs Boson and multiple planes of existence and the linked interview with Michio Kaku (which I have just watched) have nothing to do with this so-called theory. Golgofrinchian seems to be confusing mainstream scientific investigation of the possibility of more dimensions than the familiar 3+1 with this piece of fringe speculation. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear non-notable fringe. I just followed the links from the references. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.