Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interuniversal space


 * 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 ambiguous. Vote count leaves us with nothing clear. My observation here is that verifiability and the lack of cited sources is a concern, something that has not really been adequately covered by the "keep" voters. I also observe that the article is extremely short. While there is not a consensus to delete, I will use my discretion and call this a redirect to multiverse, as has been suggested by at least two people, and invite people to undo this redirect if they wish to expand this article and, most importantly, make it verifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Interuniversal space
Virtually undocumented neologism, scoring 4 Google hits GTBacchus 10:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If verified, merge with Multiverse. Otherwise delete. --Angr/undefined 14:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The name interuniversal space seems to use the analogy of intergalactic space, interstellar space and interplanetary space. Garr 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But why do you posit that universes are necessarily separated specifically spacially, just as the known groupings you mentioned? Unless someone who knows anything about the subject is able to clarify this, I suggest: delete. Dusik 19:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. GuardDog 01:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems to have already been deleted - not sure why the week on AfD was waived... -GTBacchus 04:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I just restored it. It was definitely deleted out of process. --Angr/undefined 07:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete total neologism. So what if it's in keeping with intergalactic etc.? That doesn't mean it's in use. Marskell 08:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I apologise for the speedy delete - at the time I was reviewing a series of contributions made by a suspicious user (User:64.194.44.220), and I had the honest impression that it was intentional nonsense (and so speediable). But in fact this user did not originate this article, and on review it appears to be a legitimate topic about which research may exist. I do think though that it should be redirected to "multiverse" until such time as someone writes more detailed information on the topic. Deco 20:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Multiverse. 64.194.44.220 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but verify it. --N0thingness 03:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Edwardian 07:05, 7 November 2005 (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.