Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to M-theory

Needless introduction to M-theory, was a copyvio for four years, could become a fork.

Comment Completing this nomination which was left in an unfinished state by User:Gwen Gale. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Morven, article had vanished while the history was being sweeped of the copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have the main article M-theory. I think this one is needless and could become unhelpful. It could fork off accidently into a misleading summary (the solar system analogy is in itself not at all the way to put a rundown of bound particles in quantum states and there are already other creeping worries of missed simplification): A reader could be more lost than ever after reading this. Moreover, why maintain two articles? Conflicts are likely to slip through one day, even shreds of PoV which could turn this one into a fork, maybe. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wierd and more of a tutorial than an article and yet not very helpful. It is more of a superquick, not-entirely correct guide to very-small things in physics. Yes M-theory is hard to understand, but that's because string theory is hard to understand (apparently even by string theorists). If someone needs to be reminded what an atom is then, lets face it, they probably need to start at a less abstract level than m-theory.Nick Connolly (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An article on this topic would be quite worth-while. The current pseudo-stub not really useful, though. If possible, improve, don't delete, but not much would be lost if it went away completely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By topic do you mean an introductory topic? I ask because we already have the main article M-theory. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean at maybe the level of a typical SciAm article. Our current article on M-theory is not that hot, either... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary fork. Please do feel free to improve the lead of M-theory to be more readily understood by a lay audience, though. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's odd that it's been here so long. Grsz 11 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have others of these in Category:Introductions -- I'm all but certain there were once several more than there are now. Is someone running a merge campaign? I see value in these, and M-theory is certainly a topic that could warrant one. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the entropy one got lost. See Category:Introductions and the corresponding Category:Articles with separate introductions. Oh, I see, it is a mini-edit war: [1]. There used to be nine "introduction" articles back in July 2007. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to general relativity. What seems to have happened since then is that we lost Background and genesis of topos theory and gained Introduction to virus. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to M-theory. The ledes of articles are supposed to be introductions. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous related debate concerning Introduction to evolution was here. What I said when closing that debate was "It is clear that WP:AFD is the wrong venue for discussing "introduction to" articles in general. Suggest opening a request for comments on the issue, or continuing at one of the discussion threads pointed out towards the end of this AfD. The issues specific to this article (such as proposals to merge with evolution should be addressed on the talk page for the article". Raising this here in case this applies here as well, with any merge obviously being to M-theory. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]