Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep henrik•talk 19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Earth radiation
Procedural nomination. Expired prod but strikes me as as something worthy of a debate especially given the debate on the talk page. Pascal.Tesson 04:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: I'd definitely like to see some more references if possible, but assuming it is accurate, seems like a notable theory. - Rjd0060 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. A crackpot idea that doesn't seem to have received much notice (thank goodness). No references other than the creators of the theory. Clarityfiend 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Manfred Curry Mandsford 12:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is junk. If this is a notable theory then my goldfish is Moby Dick. Nick mallory 13:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep In Sweden these theories have (unfortunately) a large following. The paper Folkvett which is a publication by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning published this issue dealing exclusively with these ideas. We need the article to present a sceptic view if nothing else. Nixdorf 15:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I can't read Swedish but assuming Nixdorf is correct, that Folkvett issue is more than enough reason to keep the article. Actually, it would probably be good to expand the article using that source. Note also that the French wiki article, which has a slightly more general focus, is quite developed (though not entirely in the direction of solid science). It includes (unfortunately dead) links to scientific views debunking the concept as well as a few books by proponents of these theories which suggests that this is a somewhat notable crackpot theory. I have to agree that it's worth keeping the article to provide the scientific counterpoint. Pascal.Tesson 16:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - sources I found were all books of dubious publication, or personal webpages. No indication of coverage in secondary sources or skeptic sources like skepdic. I'm beginning to believe that the use of non-English sources as justification of notability is invalid for notability on English wikipedia. The entire article lacks inline citations, making it impossible to link any statements to a source and therefore impossible to trim out sourced information from unsourced. WLU 16:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Non-English sources are perfectly fine in the absence of English sources. (please take a look at the relevant guidelines) There's also an article about it in German at skeptiker.de. Pascal.Tesson 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- As sources, yes, but as the primary justification for notability? Taking information from a non-english source seems different than justifying notability where there does not appear to be any significant coverage in any english media. It does seem a bit english-chauvinist though; I'll review WP:N. The only source I can read that I could use to add information to the page is the Bachler book. Also, do the non-english sources differentiate between Earth radiation, curry lines, Hartmann lines and ley-lines? With a non-tested, non-empirical subject like this one, it's important to make sure that the translation is to the correct concept when there's so many linked pseudoscientific ones that have no real tests for verification. WLU 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Notability as it is understood on Wikipedia is basically the existence of sources. That these happen to be in a foreign language is largely irrelevant. As for differentiating between earth radiation, Curry lines, Hartmann lines and ley-lines, I'm not sure I'm particularly interested in understanding the subtle nuances between various pseudo-scientific concepts but "earth radiation" seems as good a title as any to discuss all of them, though I can see an argument for merging everything into radiesthesia. Pascal.Tesson 17:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- As sources, yes, but as the primary justification for notability? Taking information from a non-english source seems different than justifying notability where there does not appear to be any significant coverage in any english media. It does seem a bit english-chauvinist though; I'll review WP:N. The only source I can read that I could use to add information to the page is the Bachler book. Also, do the non-english sources differentiate between Earth radiation, curry lines, Hartmann lines and ley-lines? With a non-tested, non-empirical subject like this one, it's important to make sure that the translation is to the correct concept when there's so many linked pseudoscientific ones that have no real tests for verification. WLU 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Swedish sceptics refer to Edwin Robinson and Cahit Coruh, 1988, Basic Exploration Geophysics, John Wiley & sons, New York, ISBN 0-471-61297-0 and Steven Weinberg, 1993, Dreams of a Final Theory, Hutchinson radius, London, ISBN 0-09-1773954. Nixdorf 17:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notable pseudoscience, which is (or was?) also influential in the Netherlands. /Pieter Kuiper 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - per Pieter Kuiper if you can find some good sources. Think outside the box 13:00, 16 November 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
