Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original debate

• Keep, no it doesn't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What the heck? --- RockMFR 01:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What OR, where? Need stronger argument from nom for such a conclusion to be reached... - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has a lot of on-net discussion and at least one person online has created an extensive bibliography of alleged works. Certainly seems not to be original research and has enough out there to write a well referenced article about - Peripitus (Talk) 02:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment How does it represent original research? -- Librarianofages 03:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not original research. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - if only because of WP:SNOW. --Dennisthe2 03:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'll ask SA to elaborate on this, but I agree with him; this is a novel synthesis of independently published claims. The physics section is, taken on its own, muddled at best; the OR is in the connection to the psychology discussion, in which each of the individual studies mentioned is either a) widely agreed to be plagued with methodological problems (PEAR), or b) entirely unrelated to the thesis (skin conductance and heart rate studies). Opabinia regalis 04:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously - the creator, User:Dicorpo, has contributed nothing outside of this type of material, in particular his linkspamming of this "open access journal" (read: some guy's website) for these ideas. Also, the sources cited in this article may appear to be legitimate, but "Physics Essays" and "NeuroQuantology" are not well-regarded journals, and those sources that are reliable, are related to the psychology experiments - which, as I mentioned, are unrelated to the quantum consciousness thesis. Opabinia regalis 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep close please. Just H 04:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

end of original debate

• NOTE The above discussion is from the first afd which closed just a few hours before the nominator renominated the article for a second time. The format used above which places the entire previous debate in a second nomination is highly unorthodox. Bwithh 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lord, what kind of messed up bureaucracy is this? -- I relisted the article because I didn't get a chance to make a decent nomination before being called away. In a matter of 4 hours, this discussion was tabled. Now I'm told that I have to go through a completely different place? Come on, people! This is Wikipedia, for goshsakes. There is a Wikipedia:Ignore all rules essay that means that if there are problems, you go ahead and fix them. Is it really going to kill you to have a discussion with a full nomination presented up front? This kind of WikiLegalism is uncalled for. --ScienceApologist 05:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed procedural discussion

• Speedy Procedural Keep In the highly unorthodox relisting above, the nominator is citing WP:IAR to circumvent a WP:SNOW decision, which the nominator argues is excessive "Wikilegalism" that WP:IAR is designed to deal with. (See this). In fact, WP:SNOW is an extension of WP:IAR. This kind of mess is why I believe in the importance of WP:PROCESS.

If the nominator has problems with the prior discussion that has just closed, he/she should take it to Deletion Review rather than simply open another discussion immediately. I haven't looked at the validity of the nomination arguments and won't do so under these circumstances. Deletion Review is specifically set up for cases where the closing of an afd discussion is contested. If you have a problem with the WP:SNOW early closure, then take it there. You may well have a strong case that it was too quickly closed, but using WP:IAR against WP:IAR will get you nowhere. Use WP:DRV instead. Bwithh 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • It was only closed because for some odd reason, he decided to revert my reversion of said close. Which was done improperly, by who I believe isn't an admin, in a case that was not a valid WP:SNOW close. Ugh, this is complicated. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is the worst I've seen it, and I've been doing these things for more than 2 years now. This is the first time I've ever seen a WP:PROCESS justification for a speedy keep. --ScienceApologist 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • To sort this out, I plan on unclosing the original AfD, which should have been done in the first place, posting your new nomination there, and allowing that to continue. Unless there are objections? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I feel that we could just keep going here. We can call the first one a "false start" or something like that. I also posted on WP:DRV just in case. --ScienceApologist 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then I won't do that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)