Deletion of Hořava–Witten string theory

Comment: per . The improved referencing makes clear that this is not just the work of an isolated unpublished paper (as if that weren't already obvious from the level of citation to that paper
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: Hořava–Witten" gets 963 hits in GScholar and 532 hits in GBooks; that search term includes Hořava–Witten string theory as well as the Hořava–Witten domain wall (another unsourced article) and the resulting Hořava–Witten cosmology. All three of these are related concepts and could be discussed in a single article. Along with the citation counts found by Sławomir Biały above, it is clear that this topic is notable. But the article has serious problems--almost all cited sources were originally related to a single author (Motl) resulting in an idiosyncratic view of of this theory. So the article looks to have a non-neutral point of view and be a for Motl's Anti-de Sitter space take on the theory. The refs also show the strong Motl bias; Ref 3 has Tom Banks as the first author on the paper, but Motl is listed first in the ref. Thanks goes to Dimension10 for adding the original primary refs, but the usual approach in these papers has not been incorporated into the article prose. Blowing up the article per  is a reasonable course if these strong biases cannot be removed. But removing the biases are ultimately a surmountable problem, per . I may have a go at it myself. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:TNT||WP:SURMOUNTABLE)