Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growing Earth Theory

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. --Wizardman 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Growing Earth Theory

Joke presented as a real theory Alex Bakharev 11:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Sam Carey was neither a jokester, fraudster - but a theoretician on a particular way of looking at geology... they said the same of wegener, so on this the basis of the afd is somewhat POV from my limited understanding SatuSuro 11:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This page is not about Carey's work, but that of an amateur follower of his. Giving undue weight to fringe theory. The article fails to demonstrate that there is any coverage of this theory (not even debunking of it) in reliable sources independent of its inventors. WP:A#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of sources are cited to establish that this theory is notable. The theory itself may be junk, but it isn't the role of Wikipedia editors to make that judgement. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Walton monarchist89 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry, but where is that evidence? I can see: 1 article in a popular online newspaper for nerds. 1 appearance of Adams in a TV talk show. 2 online articles by Adams himself. 2 books that are not about Adam's "Growing Earth", but Carey's much more serious "Expanding Earth". All the rest are links to advocacy sites by followers of the theory. So, we have a guy who has some nerdy sort of noteworthiness for being a comic author, and who has drawn some very limited media curiosity for coupling his comic authorship with his freak pseudo-geology beliefs. Nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply to comment - don't you think that "nerd" and "freak pseudo-geology" are rather subjective and POV terms to use in an AfD? Seems like an ad hominem argument to me. Walton monarchist89 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge (with redirect) into Expanding earth theory. Seems notable enough that it deserves a mention, but Wikipedia doesn't need an independent article on each minor variation of an extreme fringe theory. PubliusFL 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep. Do Not Merge Expanding Earth is not extreme fringe theory rather emerged with strong supportive evidence, revived Wegener's Continental Drift and paved the way for Plate Tectonics. Growing Earth Theory is not a minor variation of EE, rather a significantly evolved derivation which addresses issues in physics and cosmology that Carey did not. Its notability is referenced and deserves a place in Wikepedia. MichaelNetzer 17:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that User:MichaelNetzer is a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest. He's only ever edited his own autobiography (Michael Netzer) and the articles on "Expanding Earth" and "Growing Earth" on Wikipedia, and he is apparently the owner of several of the advocacy websites cited in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Not Advocate: I have openly stated at my user page that I was drawn to Wikipedia because of a biography about me and hope to step out to contributing more widely to the project. My brief involvement in these subjects, so far, is no indication that I am a single-purpose editor and I intend to widen my involvement out of pure regard for the Wikepedia mission. I have studied the guidelines for conflict of interest and my edits and writings will show I have no POV intentions, rather only contribute to enhancing the scope of Wikepidia content. I do not own "several advocacy" web sites as claimed above, rather only one. I have no present affiliation with any of the other references cited in Growing Earth Theory article. MichaelNetzer 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (now Neutral as explained below). I tend to support articles about all pseudoscience for which there is any degree of N, either scientific or popular. In this case there appears to be none whatsoever. Every single one of the references is a self-published or personal websites. There is not the least evidence that anyone else has ever paid the least attention to it even to debunk it. The EE Theory, though probably a thoroly disproven hypothesis, was at least promulgated by an actual scientist and has some actual references. A sentence about this one might be appropriate them, perhaps as an external link. It would not bother me the least if you wrote the entire article yourself as a single-purpose account, if only you had some source for any of it, and that others than yourself could be shown to have taken any notice of it. DGG 09:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Innocent Oversight: I do not believe, DGG, that you intentionally ignore the two references to a Wired Magazine feature and the 2 hour interview by Art Bell on Coast to Coast Radio as indicatory of popular notability. I believe rather that this was an innocent oversight. I have since added another such third party unaffiliated reference, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Radio Podcast where the subject was also discussed in a lengthy interview. All this in addition the primary sources you and others have mentioned. Regarding your other concerns: I would truly not endeavor to create this article had this material not existed. Though I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, I'm familiar enough with the guidelines to understand that this subject fulfills them. I accept being frowned upon for a possible conflict of interest but I maintain that COI guidelines allow editors to walk this fine line as long as no POV or biased material is introduced to Wikipedia content. I believe the article shows that I've remained within these guidelines and have shown due notability to the theory. I would hope now that this is clarified, that you might rescind your objection and support keeping the article, based on your own comments and the above citations. Best regards, MichaelNetzer 15:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork of valid encyclopedic article expanding earth theory. While Neal Adams is serious in his promotion of this fringe science, the idea that Adams' ramblings about fundamental physics qualify him as a notable scientific researcher is definitely a joke. Tim Shuba 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not an issue of scientific qualification, rather the citation of verifiable sources of notable unaffiliated third party popular interest. It is not an issue of one's POV of the theory. MichaelNetzer 01:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment True, I hadn't noticed the Wired article; I consider it suitable to verify the N of Nick Adams but not the theory. (which is what i orig. thought of the radio interview) If anything, the lack of subsequent discussion after these shows it nn. DGG 00:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Response: The Wired article primarily deals with the theory. The radio show came as an aftermath of a previous one with host George Noory, (now also cited), both of which dealt with the theory. In between them came the Skeptics Podcast which is also about the theory. This shows a series of subsequent discussion and popular notability for the theory gaining momentum - the last of which was less than 3 months ago. Your original remarks were "...There is not the least evidence that anyone else has ever paid the least attention to it even to debunk it."... and "...if only you had some source for any of it, and that others than yourself could be shown to have taken any notice of it." I believe these requests have been met abundantly. MichaelNetzer 01:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and I want to say that crackpot scientific theories are not deletable on the basis of their crackpotiness, but rather on the basis of their notability. This looks notable. Tag the article for re-writing, make sure it's categorized as fringe science and/or pseudo-science, and keep it. No more problem. If there are edit wars, resolve them somewhere other than AfD. If we could delete every notable crackpot theory, there wouldn't be articles like Bigfoot. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notability established. Needs work not reason to delete. - Peregrine Fisher 07:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keeper I moved it from EE theory. However, I see more POV here than there. Needs editing and to moved to a less ambiguous name. Have a crack at those articles about some minor entertainment instead. Like it or ignore it, I can see no valid argument for deletion. Next? - Fred 14:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Why Move? This is the name of the theory, by which it is known. "Growing Earth" appears clear and concise, not ambiguous. It states exactly what the theory imparts. I agree the article needs work, though I don't see POV. The reason for its present state is that it was moved as a section from another article. The intent is to streamline and improve it, also through additional material from the source references. MichaelNetzer 15:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is about some minor entertainment, unless Coast to Coast AM has become a peer-reviewed scientific journal while I wasn't paying attention. Nevertheless, the reason it should be deleted is because sloughing off material that is dragging an article down to create a new article can be bad for the encyclopedia, as outlined in WP:Content forking. Regarding name selection, the title Comics artist theory of life, the universe and everything might just fit, preferably as a subsection on the Neal Adams page. Tim Shuba 19:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Not Forking From WP:Content forking: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." This is the issue which dragged down the EE article which I agreed to. While the two theories share significant common information, the distinct content of Growing Earth Theory (creation of matter, growing uiverse) detracts from Sam Carey's classical model of Earth Expansion. It was moved in order to enhance the content of both articles. MichaelNetzer 21:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment The value of the sources is debatable. We are asked to judge the interview by other interviews. The relative merits of borderline theories is endlessly debatable. (My own person way of evaluating is to think of how much surprised i would be if the theory were true, and how much it would contradict very well established theories. Bigfoot would surprise me very much--on the ground of common sense, but it doesn't contradict biology--such a creature could have evolved. This one would both surprise me, and is contradicted by all theories of geophysics. But I am not a RS, and any view I have on the scientific validity is irrelevant. The question is whether this is N, either to established science, or the public. Impossible garbage which gets newspaper articles is N, and rightly so, because people will come here for information. In this situation I think the default might have to be keep, and I have changed my "vote" to neutral on the basis that reasonable people might disagree on the value of the sources--DGG
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment why do people continue to debate the scientific validity of this article as a reason to decide one way or another on the deletion debate? Remember Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion, which is official policy. The extreme crackpotiness of this theory has no bearing on whether it should be kept or not. Notable loons will get articles about them and their theories. The article certainly needs re-writing so it presents itself as "famous crackpot guy claims.... blah blah blah" instead of presenting itself as "blah blah blah is true" but re-writing issues are not by themselves a reason to delete an article. They call for cleanup tags instead. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • While not wishing to diminish from the gratitude for your support of keeping the article, I'd only like to say that the article itself does not claim the theory to be true, rather attributes its entire contents as being what the famous "crackpot" theorist claims, and says so at almost every turn. The text falls short of attesting any crackpotiness to the theory, or calling the author a crackpot, in order to maintain a neutral POV, as per Wikipedia guidelines. I would think. ...and thanks, MichaelNetzer 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I changed my mind on move after reading response. Forking is not relevant to these articles, avoiding consensus &c. are not issues. But I now know a bit more, having read it thoroughly. I do regret having brought Hollow Earth theory to the attention of WP:SCI! Keep - Fred 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The theory itself is notable enough to keep. Further, I think that it does a good enough job on its own of stating that the theory is unsupported by the vast majority of the scientific community. No further "crackpopt" notations are required. Kurt 04:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that if kept that further comment is unnecessary. This is not subtle nonsense that needs to be explained in detail. DGG 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge Properly cited secondary source: Coast To Coast AM. According to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." Coast To Coast AM represents the height of notability in the community of fringe theories. On a side note, the article could use a spell-check, and a section on criticisms to eliminate overall bias. Inmatarian 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well written article. It's too long to merge so I don't see any reason not to give this an article of it's own. Also, being a "fringe" theory doesn't mean we should delete. Science is all about questioning the assumption of the mainstream.--God Ω War 17:32, 2 March 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.