Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negative-dimensional 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 was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negative-dimensional space[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

PROD contested by IP without explanation or improvement. The rationale, posted on 21 February 2021 by AlexShamov (talk · contribs), read:

The page is extremely misleading and lacks any coherent mathematical content. It refers to obscure (at best!) works by Maslov, of questionable notability (e.g. they're barely cited by anyone but the author himself), and conflates his notion with the completely unrelated notion of spectra.

This is corroborated by similar remarks on the talk page:

From Talk:Negative-dimensional space

Original synthesis?[edit]

This article appears to be "original synthesis", and doesn't (to me) seem to be encyclopaedic in nature. It appears to be based entirely on a single arxiv paper. See extensive discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Negative-dimensional_space for more. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it even make sense?[edit]

Can anybody at least add a reference? Maslov's works look rather suspicious, and one cannot rely just on one source, right? A nice funny idea, but if it's an opinion of just one individual, it probably does not make any sense at all, does it? I also looked into the first reference; it's just something artistic, new-age musings on elementary topology for kids. It's not math, I think.

In short, the article should be removed.

Vlad Patryshev (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference says, "to do this, we turn to holistic, pre-rational, and post-rational understandings". "Holistic" is one of those meaningless words that people say to impress, and mathematics is neither pre-rational nor post-rational. And I would also quibble with the word "understandings", as there is no indication in that paper that anyone understands anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR issues. I'm calling bullshit on this. The main source is an "art project". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Power~enwiki. We have never published original research, and after 20 years, everybody knows this. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pseudo-mathematics without reliable sources. Tercer (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2021 (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.