Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansion theory

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Much words, but no suggestion that anyone has been persuaded. The nominator's condition does not seem to have been met: the article history and diffs [1] don't show that this has been transformed away from an article about the book, or that anything but war and revert has been done with the article. -Splash^talk 17:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: whilst I have deleted the now targetless redirects, I'm not going to unlink the couple of redlinks left behind since the debate is clear (per the nominator, for example) that an article could still be written in future. -Splash^talk 17:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion theory

An article started by the author of a self-published book to promote the book and his alternative science ideas. The book has been reviewed by the Yorkshire Post, but has apparently attracted little or no scientific interest. A few skeptic sites debunk it. The article has proven difficult to maintain as anything other than an ad for the book, because the author insists on reverting to his preferred version.

• Delete. An article created and maintained solely as an ad for a book. Proviso: per WP:DP:
  • The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted.
• As nominator I specify that if dab or someone else has managed to turn this into a semblance of an encyclopedia article on the larger subject matter (not just this guy's book), the article should be kept irrespective of other editors' stated opinion. My reason for deletion is solely because it's a massive, pointless, unencyclopedic ad for (and partial rebuttal of) the book. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Tony Sidaway. Dlyons493 19:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. The vandalism keeps it from being turned into something useful. Salsb 20:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete page until such time as there exists a method to protect pages from anon edits only. It's something that could possibly use it's own page, but there's no hope for it now. (And hasn't been for months.) --Icelight 21:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete page. It's only generating vitriol at the moment. Throbblefoot 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep, It is a splendid addition to the Category:Pseudoscience collection. But merge with accounts of the "Divergent Matter" theory. Since the concept keeps re-occurring, it is good to have an article about it. But make it an article about the concept, not about this book in particular. If we delete this, we'd also have to delete Time Cube and lots of other pseudoscience article. Vandalism is not a valid reason for VfD! If necessary, keep protected. Get the arbcom to ban the "anon", and then clamp down with range blocks. dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vandalism is not sufficent reason to delete this article. However, I don't think this article establishes that this subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 14:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • you must not have come across WP:PAC. Seriously, I realize the theory is worthless, but there are several ISBN'd(?) books about it, with a publishing history of "many" documents, reaching back into the 1930s, so sans all the vandalism, this VfD wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Suppose I vfd'd Heribert Illig? Besides, I found the (unvandalized) article useful, well-informed, and interesting. It shows WP's strength that it manages to feature an independent assessment in the face of such aggressive authors' online activity dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to a very weak keep, but not because of the tired pokemon cliche. If it was McCutcheon himself, I'd still vote delete because I don't see any evidence he's achieved a Time Cube-level of noteriety. But since this does seem to date back to the 1930s, it is somewhat notable beyond McCutcheon alone. This article should beef up the historical context and establish how famous or infamous McCutcheon actually is, however. Gamaliel 21:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I note he does have an ISBN; that's usually good enough for WP. I grant the book is hardly notable; Is it book more notable, or less notable, than, say, Kélen or Brithenig (just web-published) The Burning Times (movie) (random bad documentary film)? That's a matter of taste, I suppose. It wouldn't be a disaster not to have this article, but since people have taken the pain to put it together, I don't see why we should trash it.dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If it does get deleted, closing admin needs to make sure it gets protected against re-creation. Also make sure Expansion Theory and anything else linking gets removed and protected. Wikibofh 21:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem to have attracted any significant interest. I don't think it's correct to say McCutcheon's theory dates back to the 1930s so much as McCutcheon has latched on to someone back then he can cite. There's no real intellectual history to trace. --Michael Snow 22:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Obviously need more work Fornadan (t) 17:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm deleting my vote to keep this article. There doesn't appear to be room in some people's minds for compromise. Fine. Some insist on twisting my words regarding tolerance for the concept and to allow truth to emerge over time. Fine. Go ahead. Delete it. Hope it makes your life less constipated. If people don’t like messy, ugly processes, they can always opt for benevolent dictatorship...because that’s basically your alternative. --66.69.219.9 16:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one of many non-academic Theories of Everything which got no significant interest. --Pjacobi 14:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-published nonsense (and getting an ISBN means nothing, since it's merely a classification number that the vanity press had lying around), and non-notable nonsense to boot. --Calton | Talk 15:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I really think the above suggestion (by 66.69.219.9) that "expansion theory" should be treated in Wikipedia on a par with quantum mechanics is preposterous. Granted, one can always find people who think those two bodies of thought are on the same level, but it would make a mockery of Wikipedia to treat them as if they are comparable. Also, I think when 66.69.219.9 says the article should be "kept and allowed to evolve over time", and talks about "maintaining a dialogue" about a list of unanswered questions, he is really advocating what the Wikipedia founder euphemistically termed "original research". Wikipedia is not intended to be a forum for lunatic fringe crackpots like Mark McCutcheon to engage in "dialogues" about their crackpot beliefs. I'm afraid if the article is kept, this is what it will become (at best), to the detriment of Wikipedia.

Having said that, I agree with those who've said that the general subject (expansion as the cause of gravity) could make a useful article, because it's a very old and well-known (albeit silly) idea, and there are interesting and factual things that could be said about it. Unfortunately there are no reputable references for these statements (as far as I know), so it would just have to be written by some non-crackpots... but then we immediately get into the business of deciding who is and who is not a crackpot. This is why the Wikipedia founder (wisely, in my opinion) said that the only feasible way of protecting against physics crackpots is to insist that material not be allowed in Wikipedia until/unless it has been published in a reputable source. If there's any other answer to the problem of crackpots, I'd like to hear what it is. 63.24.49.67 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• The former version was a promotion of crackpottery. The new one effectively states that the theory's has no notability or significance. Either way, delete. - Mike Rosoft 06:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No harm having an article on the general subject and deleting articles that are problematic is not a good way to resolve the problems they pose. As far as "crackpot theories" go, I think we should cover them all, no matter how narrowly supported they are. They can be presented in a neutral way and verified and that is all we should require in my view. There's a proscientist bias in Wikipedia that doesn't really do it any credit. This is a book about the whole world and every way of looking at it, not just an encyclopaedia of science as endorsed by the establishment. This might not be science -- actually, I'd agree it certainly isn't -- but where does it say that only real science can be included? I urge the delete voters to put aside their scientific selves, don a more human outlook and reconsider on the grounds that if the article says "no one thinks this is science", no harm is done by including it as a curiosity. Grace Note 01:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think people voicing their opinions here might find the following statement of Wikipedia policy useful. This is from the Wikipedia policy page on "No Original Research":

Origin of this policy - Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows:

The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide." (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).

...if you're unable to find anyone to publish it, or if you can only secure publication in a news outlet that does not have a good reputation, then the material has no place in Wikipedia, EVEN IF YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE. [my emphasis]

What counts as a reputable publication? Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

End quotes.

So there really isn't any question (is there?) that this article is not suitable content for Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's own stated policies. Of course, if people want to change the policies, that's fine, but I frankly think the existing policy is the only one that will protect Wikipedia from being over-run with crackpots. Just take a quick look at the edit history of this article for the past month. Then multiply that by a thousand, when crackpots discover that Wikipedia has opened its doors and repudiated what Grace Note calls its pro-scientist bias. Yes, it's true, Wikipedia is biased toward science that has been published in reputable sources... this is an explicit part of its policies. Grace Note says this policy does Wikipedia no credit. I disagree. I think it does Wikipedia great credit, and should be preserved. There's already a web site called Crank.net, that includes more crackpot theories than anyone could possibly want. No need to duplicate that here in Wikipedia, and certainly no need to conflate such nonsense with articles on real science. But that's just my opinion. I guess it all comes down to - what do people want Wikipedia to be? And are we guided by its existing policies, or are we making up new policies? 63.24.123.49 05:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete the current version adequately makes the only point that matters: scientifically, this stuff is utter bosh. However, from the history page it seems clear that if the article is kept, vandalism will continue indefinitely. Someone said that crank theories can make interesting articles, if not exactly edifying ones :-/ They can, but it is probably best to wait until the author has passed on, so that we don't see the kind of edit war we see in the history of this page. I think this is basically the same point that Jimbo Wales was making: in a perfect world, everything would be grist to our mill, but some articles are just to hard to keep NPOV, because of recurrent vandalism.---CH (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.