Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moving dimensions 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving dimensions theory

Violates WP:OR, a google search reveals that "moving dimensions theory" is basically a neologism created by some physics cranks with no real, academic backing Batmanand | Talk 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• For reference, here is a previous AfD. --209.171.52.224 12:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR as above, not to mention a direct cut and paste from http://www.gatago.com/sci/physics/2886563.html, and it sure smells a lot like bollocks Akradecki 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Actually the physicist who is proposing MDT is quite accomplished. Above an editor claims that MDT "smells a lot like bollocks." This is a highly qualitative opinion. MDT should be judged by its merits with arguments for or against based in logic and reason. I find no fault with MDT--in fact it succeeds where ST & LQG have failed. It presents an underlying physical model for QM & SR, based in logic and reason, verified experimentally. String theory has been shown to be a complete hoax, and yet it fills wikipedia with pages upon pages. ST should be deleted before MDT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.14.242.50 (talk • contribs).

• Commment. (Having just reformatted your comment). You may want to read Wikipedia:Original research and explain to us why this page does not violate it. Batmanand | Talk 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is not a place to judge anything. It is a place to summarize information on subjects based on references to reliable 3rd party sources. WP is not a place for advancing original research or arguments for one theory or another. The 2 main problems with this article is 1) it does not cite its sources in an academically accepted manner 2) it is not written in an encyclopedic fashion. Theories, when not cited properly, can smell a lot like Bollocks, hence the need for careful citation!! Akradecki 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete article is not verified and I don't see any reliable sources for this. It seems to exist largely on forums.--Isotope23 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Who did Einstein cite in his original paper on Relativity? String Theory has thousands of citations, and yet it is "not even wrong." Mobs and group-think does not a theory make. Truth and Beauty make a theory, and that is what MDT has. Although ST is funded by billions upon billions, MDT rocks the world with its simple postulate. Having said this, I understand that MDT may yet be deleted. But understand this has nothing to do with the integrity of the theory.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.14.242.50 (talk • contribs).

• Comment Please only state Keep or Delete once.--Isotope23 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think this quote from WP:OR applies pretty well.

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia --Wafulz 18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Moving Dimensions Theory, like wikipedia, happened because of the internet. It has been read by thousands over the past ten years, and the record will show that never once has its logic nor beauty been refuted. It was born upon the internet, and unlike the cloistered, well-funded, secret-society hoax that is string theory, it stands on its own. Sure, we could delete this article on MDT because string theorists don't want to share their massive funding, but then perhaps we should delete all of wikipedia and stick with professional encyclopedias such as Britanica and Encarta. I say let logic, reason, free thought, the internet and physics triumph over cloistered, antiquated, postmodern hoaxes. Let wikipedia reach its heights in helping to disseminate truth and beauty, while deconstructing intellectual debauchery.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.159.188.139 (talk • contribs).

Note editor's fourth ever contribution. Batmanand | Talk 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Note identifying an author by their IP means that everyone now as a unqiue ip, even though most websites don't. It also means a total of three people use AOL.

I say we offer the author a chance to link to sources--I have seens several and I will help. String Theory, although it is now shown to be a postmodern hoax, has plenty of "sources," and yet it is a hoax. String Theory is original research, and not only that, but it is a proven lie as new books this fall and articles in Time, Scientific American, and Discover are attesting. Again, ultimately we must judge a theory on its truth and beauty, not on how hip tax and tuition funded pomo hipsters think it is, or we will be forever sentencing Socrates to death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.159.188.139 (talk • contribs).

I just helped the author out by listing some references and sources. There are thousands of them. The author should be given the chance to post more resources too, as without the vast amouts of NSF funding that String Theorists use to hire grad students and postdocs to pen fake papers, it seems the author has to rely on logic and reason instead of tax-and-tuition-funded hype. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.159.188.139 (talk • contribs).

None of the sources are reliable. Batmanand | Talk 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you quite understand what we mean by "sources". We're not looking for general websites that might mention MDT (or sell T-shirts). We're looking for reliable references and citations regarding the tenents of the theory. This isn't the place to propound the theory itself, it's the place to write about the theory, describe who developed it, the history, and a brief overview. All of these must reference external sources that are reliable, preferrably mainstream sources of the information that you include here. It is preferred, too, that you document these sources by useing the <ref>text</ref> footnote format within the body of the text, so that a reader who wants to verify the legitimacy of a statement within the text can jump to that statement's source. That's what an encyclopedia entry should look like. Akradecki 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as violation of our original research policy. And I fully support Wafulz's comment. We're not trying to be mean, it's just not the right venue to publish this particular piece fo writing. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP as MDT is rooted in logic, truth and bauty. The wikipedia page on string theory is filled with lies--it should be deleted first, otherwise wikipedia will come to be known as a place that values lies over truth. Just because a lot of people believe a lie, or the government has written checks to fund it, does not make the lie true. Wikipedia has a chance here to stand on the right side of time, to live up to its potential. By killing this article, you are killing the spirit of wikipedia, and the spirit of truth. String theory not only has failed, but it is now failing to fail. Once it lied, but now it doesn't even think it has to lie anymore. By killing MDT and keeping string theory, wikipedia will shout out to the universe that it prefers lies over truth. Go ahead. Make my day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.14.242.50 (talk • contribs).

• Note endorsement has been striken out as this is the 3rd time this user has entered this opinion. Looks like a bit of sockpuppetry going on here, too. Akradecki 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment actually, Wikipedia values verifiability, not truth... which MDT does not have.--Isotope23 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Terribly written, and even if arguendo the topic is not generally original research, what is written is original research. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crankcruft. Gazpacho 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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.