Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omniverse

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. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omniverse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I started cleaning up the article, then suddenly realized that nothing is salvageable: 100% OR (don't be fooled by references) - Altenmann >t 23:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references are shoddy, as stated (though honest). Searching online I can only find some fringe sites - though there is perhaps some legitimate use of the word omniverse as a synonym for multiverse; in that case a redirect is called for. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls clearly under WP:OR. AstroCog (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may have been OR previously, but it is no longer. The concept is notable, and has a dictionary entry. The references to popular culture are mostly accurate (songs, Marvel Universe & so forth). It needs a lot of clean-up and a rewrite, but I don't think deleting a concept this widely used is very productive... The Steve 09:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is one of the most poorly written articles I have recently come across. This article fails to meet multiple guidelines and the standard expected. Some sections even need to be re-written. That being said, deleting is not the solution. I agree with Thesteve. The problems listed here are surmountable and the content is not entirely irretrievable ergo they cannot serve as grounds for deletion. But I might be wrong anyway. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 15:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concept here is far too broad to necessitate an article - this article seems to discuss not only many worlds theory, multiverse theory, possible worlds from philosophy, and then proceeds to talk about the Marvel Universe and its relation to the DC Universe among others. Note that all of these topics have their own, much better written and much better sourced and much more notable articles. There is no need for this page. Delete, possibly make this page a disambiguation page. I am highly confident (70 - 99%) in my opinion. Regards, Jeremy. -- =) khfan93 (t) (c) 20:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'm fine with a disambiguation page. There are a ton of things named Omniverse, including a physics definition, an astrology definition, a religious(cult??) concept, TV shows, magazines, and books. I have no idea which ones are notable and which are not. Sorting them out is made more difficult because its not always obvious which thing is being referred to. The Steve 05:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's poorly written rubbish because there is no way to write a proper article here. There is no concept in physics by this name. The article even has a footnote explaining that it is a distortion of Penrose and not what he actually wrote. Thesteve's claim that the concept is "widely used" is surely a joke, because anyone who has actually read the purported supporting evidence will see that the opposite is the case. The search that it links to — it isn't even a citation of anything — is just a random collection of occurrences of the nonce word "onmiverse", including in works of fiction and names of businesses. There is no coherent concept here.
The stuff about "omniverse theory" is original research. It was original research when it was in Omniverse theory (AfD discussion), and it's original research when the single-purpose accounts sprang up, a fortnight after that article was deleted, and scribbled it in this one.
Uncle G (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original Research PianoDan (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable: minor uses of the word in pop-culture does not make it notable, nor does omniversetheory.com. Also, I concur with the notion that this article constitutes Original Research. Greengreengreen red 03:39, 15 December 2012 (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.