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. Consensus herein is for article deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transdimensional mathematics[edit]

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

OR. Hard to follow but seems to consist of some odd assertions about dimension. The main source mentioned on the talk page seems no better, a very poorly written synthesis, available from Scientific Research Publishing which does seem like a reputable publisher. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure this is original research in the Wikipedia sense, but it also falls far short of our retention policies. This article is essentially the work of (arguably fringe) independent economist Bhekuzulu Khumalo. Neither Khumalo nor his work have received any attention in reliable third-party sources. So far as I can determine, none of the papers listed have been cited by anyone other subsequent self-citation by Khumalo, and none are in what could even be charitably described as influential journals (International Advances in Economic Research is probably the best of them, but his publication there is a "Research Note", which in that title is sort of a step above a Letter to the Editor; on the other end of the scale, Global Journal of Mathematical Sciences: Theory and Practical is considered predatory by Jeffrey Beall). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. are we saying one must be published by a Western journal, this is merely a man's foresight that at higher dimensions the derivative falls going to 0 at infinite dimensions and that integral increases being infinite dimensions, if your reputable people could not see that, whose fault is that. This world is not English, is Wikipedia for English speakers only, it requires far more thought to take something from one Language into English, what is so frightening about the fact that the derivative falls and integral rises because your reputable people did not see that link, we have to grow up, see around, people speak thousands of languages, fringe, well if the not fringe people could not see simple fact that at infinite dimensions derivative is zero and integral is infinite, ask yourself why they are not fringe, numbers do not lie, delete if you will, but the numbers and logic has followed, if you can not understand the logic, blame yourself not the person who discovered the conceptsInkanyamba (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid those mathematical assertions make no more sense here than in the article. "the derivative". What derivative?; there are as many as there are functions, i.e. an infinite number, even in just one dimension. Such vague and meaningless assertions are worthless. It is not our fault if the article is so poorly written it makes no mathematical sense. Other than that we have already commented on the sources; yes, some sources are much better than others. It's not a matter of nationalism; if anything there are more Western fringe sources than foreign ones. But the main sources here are not reliable ones.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is variously incomprehensible or promotional ("Needing to think like outside the box like Einstein"?), and the sources look like a real-life walled garden of dubious fringe scholarship. I don't think improving the English is going to help. If "this triangle could very well be known as khumalo triangle one day", come back then when there are reliable independent sources to cite. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete per WP:OR. Also because it's gibberish. PianoDan (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is so confusing about stating simply that at higher dimensions the derivative tends towards zero and integral towards infinity and adjustments must be made accordingly, what is your scientific reasoning for refusing, none, not one human can fight a scientific truth. Fringe, obviously, what man will promote original thought from another, Sterling the ex owner of LA Cavaliers basketball team said it right, then he was hated, you promote your own, why should a French, AngloSaxon, Jew, German ever promote black original thought, never, the refusal of the concept of the individual is being refused replaced by this what we have, bad system, evil minds, blacks aligned with keeping image of owners of media as superior are only ones who will be promoted, especially when it comes to science. One would have thought Wikipedia was above that, an encyclopedia dealing with facts. Well world will wait patiently for Chinese or Indians to hopefully start encyclopedias of their own, after all papers where edited probably by Chinese and Indians. Reality of this world. Everything boils down to simply money. Please don't delete this conversation. If ever a white ever mentions that rate of change decreases with dimensions and integral increases with dimensions, it just means nothing but racism has taken place today just like 200 years ago, never must a white man from his non fringe institutions say anything similar to definition of transdimensional mathematics. Unfortunately you will find it difficult to study dimensions without accepting that fact. Enjoy your money, delete it, but this conversation must stay, you are saying if somebody sitting in a tropical rain forest discovers something it does not count as they are fringe, scientific thought does not work like that, it merely works on something is true or false, the principles are getting more complex, you will realize too late, its just knowledge for all to share and contribute and enjoy. Now we will have unnecessary duplication in technology for the same result, trillions down the drain because we could not understand liberty is greatest collaborator Inkanyamba (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Inkanyamba: Wikipedia's goal is for verifiability NOT truth. Verifiability is vital for keeping Wikipedia factual, if we just included any assumed truth without verifiable references it would be a mess. So in fact, this is very similar to the scientific method of which you are so fond. In science, something must be verifiable by being repeated by many different people before it is accepted by the scientific community. Something your original research has failed to do at this point.

Redirect to Dimension which is what I originally did with this rubbish, but was reverted. For the record Transdimensional already redirects to Dimension, as should this. All the multi-dimensional mathematics are described in the article. This article has no references and is WP:OR. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect, as some of the comprehensible stuff is wrong. This does not need to be on Wikipedia, anywhere. MicroPaLeo (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR gibberish, bordering on WP:Patent nonsense. -- 120.23.61.107 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article edited much needed compromise if that is the idea of consensus, left it as bare as possible, but very boring, it will grow with the knowledge increases, most original thought has always originated from the fringes, this is a scientific principle, that is all it will ever be, remember most just promote from their community, Bhekuzulu is not your community, his community must promote his works, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all this is stating a theorem like any other theorems that a full on Wikipedia, , .Inkanyamba (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, for Wikipedia, inclusion requires sources independent of the original author(s). Here, the only person who appears to have considered this topic is Khumalo. So Khumalo's journal publications do not demonstrate notability (again, in the Wikipedia sense). We would need evidence of other, independent writers discussing or critiquing these ideas, in reliable sources (which many journals are, including many non-Western journals, but not things like OMICS and RIP journals). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would help if you wrote in Standard English, complete sentences, fully developed thoughts. You do not even start the article with a sentence. Why not? It appears to be a bunch of thoughts, not necessarily related to the topic and tangential phrases thrown into a page. No one could decide to include what exists now as an article when there is no discernible topic and it is without sources. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly OR, possibly patent nonsense too. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2015 (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.