Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Temporal Dimension

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 merged to F-theory. Note that when one performs a merge like this, one can simply close the AFD, rather than wait for an admin to do so.--SB | T 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is:

1. Poorly written
2. Describes a pseudo-scientific fringe-theory
3. Does not cite sources

It has been tagged as Totally Disputed; additional discussion is available at the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimur (talk • contribs) 20:17, 8 August 2006

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first criterion you present is not a criterion for deletion. The second one isn't true (as it's presented, it's fringe or post-fringe, but the article isn't pseudoscientific. The third one is surprisingly hard to work on - I poked around ADS and couldn't find anything. WilyD 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a::Perhaps valid counterpoints, WilyD - but in deference to the plethora of delete-votes below, allow me to respond. The new votes seem to articulate my original line of thinking, in accordance with Wikipedia AfD style. But, here's my own counter-counterpoints: 1) Myself and other editors have worked on rewriting to make it less poorly-written, but it's not made significant progress. 2) The term "fringe theory" may be better said as "not a theory, just a random rumination by a scientist that was later misinterpreted by someone as science." There is no formality in the theory, and thus no way to formalize the article. 3) Citations are hard to find because of point 2. I still vote delete, but thanks for your feedback. Nimur 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - it is currently WP:OR but I've alerted the original author to see if they can add references, so I may come back and change my mind. Yomangani 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - rewrite seems to satisfy the policies (although it's still a bit haphazard, that's not grounds for deletion). Not sure it is a straightforward merge candidate for F-theory, but I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it if that's the way it goes. Yomangani^talk 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The presentation of unreferenced scientific terms and theories is massively inconsistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability. John254 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:V. Appears to be original research as well. Tychocat 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable fringe theory. Ben Standeven 04:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:V. Sandstein 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete -- I plead guilty for having added the one verifiable fact to the article, the connection to Twistor theory. But the article is not about a fringe theory, whose notability is to be discussed here, but it is a total confusion of different things, I fear. At least the imaginary time has to go. And some actual string theory papers (no droght of them) would have to be cited, to make the first part keepable. Perhaps Lumidek can sacrify some minutes of his valuable time for this. --Pjacobi 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty! Indeed, this article is a haphazard amalgamation of confusion - many ideas from many distinct physical theories; I fear this article will only confuse readers further. Nimur 22:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some papers and a chapter from a popularization; I've also copied the article to my userpage just in case. It is at User:Ben Standeven/Second Temporal Dimension. Ben Standeven 23:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisted 18/08/06, which in your star-time is probably still the 17th. Slackers! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, references have been added since AfD listing was made. Not exactly mainstream physics but theories and serious researchers do exist[1][2][3][4][5]. Weregerbil 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is still, after AfD+8, a crap article. It doesn't tell me who the proponents are, the opponents, I see no historical context, just a vague definition and some disconnected links to papers abstracts laymen don't understand. As it is, it's a scientific neologism and if 8 days under the AfD spotlight can't bring this article in shape is has to go. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral now after rewrite. Still doesn't meet my criterion that scientific ideas should be covered in textbooks before they're covered here, but the rewrite at least offers a context. Merge is a good proposal. ~ trialsanderrors 03:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)/18:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Quack-cruft. 205.157.110.11 09:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have done a partial rewrite. Ben Standeven 22:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the re-write Ben. I still vote delete and merge your work into appropriate sub-sections in the F-theory articles, and redirect.Nimur 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per GRBerry and trialsanderrors. Present article should redirect there. Nimur 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See GRBerry's vote. If you want the edit history deleted, you should vote delete and redirect. If you want the history preserved, you should vote merge but not delete. ~ trialsanderrors 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the rewritten content. I have no objection to a merge, but that requires that deletion not occur, as the old title should be redirected to the article containing the merged content. GRBerry 13:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and merged the content to the F-theory article. This seems to be the consensus after the re-writes took place. The new content was well-written and neutral. There is no further need to delete the article. Nimur 19:02, 21 August 2006 (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.