Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperspace

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The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. Adrian Lamo ·· 07:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperspace

~~Article consists of misleading or nonsensical claims; I can find nothing here which is not treated better in other WP articles CH 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)~~ I have agreed with WMC's suggestion to turn this article into a humble disambiguation page, and am withdrawing my nomination for deletion accordingly. This solution seems most likely to satisfy (almost?) everyone. Thanks to all for your thoughts! ---CH 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems fine to me Tobyk777 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tobyk777, did you overlook the fact that the article claims to discuss science, not science fiction? Please see the talk page and reconsider your vote.---CH 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to nom, are you stating, per your personal expertise in this field, which by your userpage you could plausibly do, that this article is not factually sound? Adrian Lamo · 03:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adrian, it's even worse than that, this article is mostly not even wrong. I just added a critique of the first half of the article to the talk page. Every single sentence is nonsensical or in a few cases makes an identifiably incorrect claim. Please see the list--- it is really amazing. This is without question one of the absolute worst articles I have seen in the WP since I got here in late May 2005. It is entirely pointless and should be deleted as nonsensical prattle by someone who had absolutely no idea what they were talking about, or even what they were trying to say.---CH 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a real 4-dimensional construct called space-time but hyperspace as it is depicted here is more or less original research Ruby 04:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no reason to delete an article for repeating other concepts, and if it's really that bad, it can be cut to summaries and Main page: links --AlexWCovington (talk)

Hi, Alex, it really is that bad; please see the talk page and consider changing your vote! You said there's no reason to delete an article [simply] for repeating other concepts and of course I agree, but that's not the point. If an article offers nothing but nonsense and munged restatements of stuff from other (and better) articles, then it serves no useful purpose in an encyclopedia. We want WP to be useful to our readers, don't we? I should hope so! ---CH 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sentiments but all I'm seeing is bad editing. There is a term "hyperspace" in common parlance and Wikipedia needs a factual article on it; if what's there isn't right at all, then it needs fixing, not deletion. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the references are all not true or say something different. It seems this hyperspace may have been original research by the authors quoted, but that makes it not OR by this author. This is fine to condense for an article here. If this theory is not true, and dramatically not supported by mainstream physics, then this article can be modified to present a more balanced view. (I admit I can't get the New scientist link to open today so I have't read that source yet.)Obina 12:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Obina, I wish more readers appreciated what is a theory; see also scientific method. This article is a list of incomprehensble nonsense with some completely munged misstatements of genuine concepts from real physics. Please see the talk page for a discussion of the first half of the article, line by line. Every line is either nonsense or incorrect! Please reconsider your vote.---CH 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems I was taken in by good presentation without looking too closely at it. --DV8 2XL 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DV8 2XL! ---CH 22:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I've heard of space-time and hyperspace through the work of The Shamen and Terence McKenna. However, I have absolutely no idea whether this article is original research, gobbledegook, or a brilliant Wikipedia article. --kingboyk 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's some of the worst gobbledygook I've ever seen. ---CH 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Obina's comments. If the nominator (or anyone else) can provide proof the article is a hoax, then it should be fixed or the appropriate tags added to the article. Agreed the presence of references makes this not original research, but rather the same type of condensing that has been done on other wiki-articles about science.23skidoo 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove it's a hoax, of course. I can prove it's gobbledygook. But that's not really my task; if you doubt my word you should read other articles in the WP, or better yet the widely used book by Taylor & Wheeler, Spacetime physics, to familiarize yourself with how real physicists discuss the concepts the author of this article claims to describe. Please reconsider your vote.---CH 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not enough to justify deletion since there is no proof of bad faith. Correction, maybe, but not deletion. I don't have time to go hunting through books. If you believe this is gobbledygook then replace the offending content with something that is not gobbledygook -- you seem familiar with the above book, so I would start with that. I do agree with Agateller, below, that perhaps a renaming of the article is in order and change Hyperspace itself to a disambiguation page that leads to this article and to the science fiction concept. The fact that there may allegedly be factual errors in this article is not grounds for deletion. That's the same as saying the article on Angelina Jolie should be deleted because someone erroneously stated that she was the first woman to walk on the moon. If it's wrong, be bold and correct it -- but be prepared to defend your corrections with sources, is all. 23skidoo 01:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the disambiguation page is a notable improvement too many people say that they don't understand the article. Not understanding it isn't the same as proving it's a hoax. Unless someone can examine it point by point and demonstrate provable inconsistencies that show it to be entirely made-up, it should stay. However, I don't think it should be the article that comes up by default when someone looks for "hyperspace," as most people are probably looking for the science-fiction concept, and not an essay on physics. Agateller 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I might add, is presumably exactly what we want. I just wish I could understand it. --kingboyk 08:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a decently well-written article explaining a valid theory. -- Crevaner 12:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crevaner, I am incredulous. Please see my comments in the talk page and reconsider your vote. ---CH 22:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hillman. It'd be nice if we could get someone with a handle on the topic to rewrite this *cough* but in the meantime, inaccurate articles are worse than no article. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to wormhole. All but the first sentence (i.e. all these formulas) are irrelevant / nonsense. Kusma (討論) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the new disambiguation page. Kusma (討論) 02:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain~~ - The references are legit (I've met Cliff Pickover) but may not apply. What's needed is explication of why "this miserable production" (a pejorative term for someone's work, let's WP:AGF please) is so miserable. Or, alternatively, an expert opinion (from a physicist) on whether there is merit to the article. What I find concerning is that CH gives the appearance of being on a personal vendetta against this article. The comments on the talk page are not very friendly and the followup to every comment here is disconcerting. (the equations seem legit as far as they go but don't seem to explain much about how one would do anything useful with hyperspace). If this article is kept, I suggest that the disambig be reversed to make the article currently at hyperspace (science fiction) the proimary one, and have it point here. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, the references are to popular works. I mentioned in my allegedly "unfriendly" (I'd say frustrated and apalled) comments that the term hyperspace is applied in popular writings by some authors who also write legit scientific papers. If you're not willing to take my word for it, why not ask Pickover? I'd be astonished if he did not agree with my critiques in the talk page. As for "personal vendetta", I don't know who (plural) wrote that article, so it can't be personal. In fact, my motivations are concern for reader who come here seeking an encyclopedia. See for example Forum for Encyclopedic Standards.---CH 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the redo of the article into a disambig, and the cutting of the equations lifted out of context from Special Relativity I change my ~~vote~~ comment to Keep. The article now no longer needs expert review (which would have been redundant effort since Special Relativity is a much better article). ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep now its been re-written ~~Current article is rubbish, but concept is common enough (see comments above). Cut it down to a stub, or disambig. See my comments on the talk page. William M. Connolley 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC).~~ William M. Connolley 09:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change Vote to Delete After being urged to reconsider, I researched hyperspace. I had always belived that since so many pieces of fiction used it, I must have something to do with real life. Now however, after looking, there is in no way enough information on this topic for all those equations. Tobyk777 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and completly remodel. Hyperspace is a common ennough concept to need a page. However current revision is mostly a cut and past job from Special relativity. I've now cut out the copied content and linked to the relavant section. Also has meaning in mathematics, so I've added a few relavant links. --Salix alba (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's a big improvement over what was nominated, I'd say if it's going to keep trying to be about science then ~~delete~~ as nonsense and move hyperspace (science fiction) back here. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. I'm okay with the disambig page as it is now. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of no value. --Ste. Anne 01:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to hyperspace (science fiction). The disambiguation page is much better at being encyclopedic, but the term doesn't really seem to be _used_ outside of science fiction. If that ever changes, it can be turned back into a disambiguation page.--Christopher Thomas 04:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (sic) I am one of the few scientists actually interested in hyperspace, and this article is little more than rubbish.

Most basic concepts are not really mentioned, there are key errors, and the article doesn’t even contain the extremely useful “hyperspace” refutation of general relativity.

Hyper dimensionality and hyperspace are generally opposites, dimensional collapse (into 3 dimensions) is not mentioned, curved verses flat hyperspaces are not mentioned, “sub-space” theories are not mentioned.

And of course there are none of the big arguments in favour of HS either, like the unification of the macro and quantum worlds, or the solution to the various problems with gravity.

Wikipedia would have to be very brave to have a real article on the subject anyway, and not only because it would upset a lot of scientists. This stuff was all once part of everyday science in the 1950’s, but men with short haircuts in black suits came along and it all disappeared.

Incidentally the correct category for an article on hyperspace is surely “speculative science” - the same category as gravity engines, cold fusion, time travel, over unity machines, “intelligent” design, and (the other theory I have been working on for 15 years) - Strong AI.

- Robert Lucien Howe [lucien86@hotmail.com] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.47.213 (talk • contribs) on 09:21, 6 February 2006

Comment - Contribututions to this AfD are 86.133.47.213's only edits. Searching on "Robert Lucien Howe" indicates that this person is not employed as a scientist by academic or government-funded research institutions; instead, he seems to be an enthusiast who writes online about a "transiator" device, which allegedly is a device used by the US government to examine possible futures, and which also is alleged to exist naturally in humans. --Christopher Thomas 18:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CH just re-wrote this into a nice, readable disambiguation page that is now encyclopaedic, (unlike the earlier drek). linas 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Looks like a solid disambiguation page now. — RJH 17:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ashi 129.105.14.216 00:13, 7 February 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.