Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10 dimensions


 * 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 and redirect. I agree this is junk and should not be on Wikipedia; on the other hand, the term can be used in a reasonable way, and redirect would be appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

10 dimensions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This kind of Article really isn't Encyclopedic, or Organized. It is not written in the correct way for a Wikipedia Article. I do not want to put blame on the Author, it was a nice first try, but not good enough. --AM (Talk to me!) 00:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs work, not deleting. If you look up 10 dimensions, there's lots of sources about it. See, , , , , . Therefore, passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the help. I am new here, and I didn't realize that this article is one worth keeping, Thanks! --AM (Talk to me!) 00:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well in my opinion it is, other people may disagree though. Generally you should look for sources about it before nominating it for deletion- it appears to be a concept in String theory with quite a few references. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. While this topic might be notable, the article itself needs such a complete rewrite that it would be better to throw it out and start over. APerson (talk!) 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to String theory. This article is a personal essay, written in good faith, but with no sources and frankly doesn't make much sense. Ten dimensions is primarily notable in physics for the role it plays in string theory. Ten-dimensional space already redirects to String theory; this article should as well. --Mark viking (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Um, "There are kind of 11 dimensions if you include the 0th dimension." This is irredeemable junk. If the particular significance of ten-dimensional space to string theory is already covered, then I think this can just be deleted. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I thought at first it was an attempt to transcribe this video that went semi-viral awhile back, but not even that. No objections to a redirect, though I don't think it's an especially likely search term. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to String theory per . As written this is unencyclopedic, unsourced, largely unintelligible original research. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect, but to dimension, not to string theory. Although string theory's use of 10-dimensional space may be the most prominent application of this number of dimensions, a redirect there would be much too specific; there are plenty of other 10-dimensional things that have nothing to do with physics. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - there's no need for a redirect here. We don't redirect "7 Trees", "12 Trees" and "37 Trees" to the article on "Trees."  This is complete WP:OR, and if there weren't already "Redirect" votes present, I'd recommend for speedy. PianoDan (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - that is almost speedy-grade material. Comparing that unintelligible essay with the original source makes it clear that the meaning has been lost. There would be a case for redirection if, and only if, "10 dimensions" was a common term for something in the context of string theory which meant more than the plain meaning ("5+5 coordinates of spacetime"). Needless to say, I do not see that. The mere fact that the article tries to deal with String theory is irrelevant (if Lizards from outer space is created with the claim Barack Obama is one of them, we would not redirect the former to the latter at AfD!). Tigraan (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2015 (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.