Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musean hypernumber


 * 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. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored or usefied by any admin upon request. MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Musean hypernumber

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The same reason I had to propose the article for deletion. Multiple concerns:
 * The content in itself seems not notable at all; in fact the sources point to either Charles Musès (who wasnt a mathematician, but, as wiki itself says, "an esoteric philosopher") or to Jens Köplinger, who seems the author of this article itself, as he says in the talk at special:diff/99213211: "In order to support notability, you were asking whether these numbers were "widely studied"? I wish they were. To me they are a widely referred-to concept that is in deep need of study. Other than Charles Musès and Kevin Carmody, I only know about myself having formally published in a mathematical context. Informally but mathematical, there are references in monographs by Robert de Marrais (e.g.  and others) or self-maintained web pages (e.g. Tony Smith's ). But, most other references are outside the field of mathematics, in attempts to link consciousness with mathematical concepts, and in spiritual and religious ideas (an internet search shows all kinds of mentions, some serious; I don't want to go there).".
 * References to mathematics and physics terminology is all wrong and nonsensical, how is that an algebra? How such construct relates to quantum consciousness, as Musean hypernumber implies? It seems non-rigourous patent nonsense.
 * Even if this were notable, its lack of mathematical rigor and standard terminology, as well as its original creator being an "esoteric philosopher", would make the perspective from which this article is told completely wrong. If this isnt real mathematics, but rather "the view of mathematics said philosopher had" the article must state it and not trying to sell such concept as if it had the same mathematical status of real analysis. Nickanc (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is poorly-written and the subject is of uncertain notability. But it's certainly not WP:NONSENSE in the Wikipedia sense: Musès rediscovered or repackaged the Cayley–Dickson construction and split-complex numbers at the very least, and probably most of his 'levels' are isomorphic to some simple or well-known mathematical objects. Further, it could be the case that the concept is not notable within mathematics but notable in, say, philosophy of mind or Western esotericism. In any case I'm unwilling to count as a strike against the article Musès' use of terminology which differs from modern mathematical terminology: pick one or the other, define appropriately, and move on. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Most of this isn't exactly nonsense, but it's possible to invent any number of useless mathematical structures like this. If Charles Musès is actually notable, some of this article could be very selectively merged there to help describe his esoteric views. But it's not clear to me that he is. As mathematics in its own right, the topic here is not notable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - agree with above comment: as mathematics, it does not seem to be notable, from what I can tell. WP is not a soap-box; to become notable, it must happen outside of WP, with students and followers further articulating the theory. So this seems to lie at the edge, perhaps past the edge, of what is acceptable in WP: we are not here to document the thoughts of creative, inventive thinkers -- you can find many marvelous ideas and insights and observations and inventions on the web -- and 99.99% of them do NOT have a corresponding WP article.  Heck, there's maybe only one WP article for every 10K published scientific papers, or something like that.  My gut reaction is that the original author should take this article, turn it into a PDF, and publish it on ArXiv, or send it into some mathematical or philosophical monthly to attract a bigger audience.  I guess my comment here leans towards delete, but I'm a bit too ... err ... nice and tolerant to quite say that. (Oh, BTW, based on the talk page, it appears that this content has been on WP for almost a decade!! Why the sudden urge to delete?  Live and let live?) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2016 (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.