Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter

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 Delete. When the comments of SPA's are discounted the consensus that this is inappropriate in several ways (WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc) is clear. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter

Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Original research. Page created by one of the authors of this fringe theory. The various references vary from (a) those which do not actually support/mention the thesis, (b) those which are are extremely obscure (d'Albe 1907?) and/or in Russian. Bm gub (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as a synthesis of ideas, POV pushing, conflict of interest, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, OR synthesis and badly written beyond the point of being fixable. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR. I doubt that Benoit Mandelbrot or Heinrich Wilhelm Matthäus Olbers would be pleased to see their names included in this article. The phrase 'infinite hierarchical nesting' does not occur in either of their Wikipedia articles. The concept presented in this article is a novel creation which is not accepted by reliable sources. Even WP:FRINGE articles require better sourcing than this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no original research, the article is long and well referenced; the concept of fractal distribution of matter is becoming very popular nowadays. So, don't be destructive, keep it. Denis Tarasov (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I am agree completely with Denis Tarasov to keep this article in contens of Wikipedia and let the author to continue his work about this interpretation. With regards,Den Israel (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The page Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter can not be WP:OR because this idea is so old as atomism. From here it is not an original research of one author, but it is more belief a lot of people and scientists in many countries. The theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter can not be simply the synthesis of different ideas because it is the theory in opposition to atomism. The theory is common and have the right to be in Wikipedia. Moreover the theory is very important for the next development of science.

About the argument "non-neutral point of view" (WP:NPOV). Please show where it take place in the text precisely? And what do you mean under “articles require better sourcing”? On the page is 22 references !!

The page is translation to English from Russian Wikipedia where the page was already carefully examined for such criteria as WP:OR and so on. I call you to help for good translation of the article, and for search of more reliable references if you are sure that it is necessary. If you think that the name “Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter” does not occur in either of their Wikipedia articles may be you find the better name? Fedosin (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia has specific and longstanding practices to deal with fringe physics theories. Right now, the article suggests that 10 or so people, over the last 100 years or so, have independently thought, "Whoa, isn't an atom sort of like a mini-solar-system, and a solar system sort of like a mini-galaxy?" This doesn't particularly differentiate your theory from the hundreds of few-adherent physics theories we delete all the time. The article does not even begin to suggest that there's a coherent school of thought behind the "fractal" idea; it's just a list of people who have, at one time or another, said, "Whoa! Fractals!" Oldershaw, for example, has published dozens of unrefereed papers and gotten exactly one obscure citation. The Plyashkevich works appears to be in Russian books, not in journal articles; I can find no US libraries carrying these books, and no one citing these books in further discussion: again, not notable. The Fedosin books are completely absent from Western libraries and are cited nowhere. The Baryshev and Teerikorpi book is about galaxy clusters only, not "infinite hierarchy". This is what we mean by "not notable". A few people have come up with this fractal idea, but nobody has paid them any attention. Two ideas: (1) You are welcome to keep working on your idea and attempting to publish it in refereed journals; Wikipedia has nothing to do with this. After some of these articles are published and receive notable mainstream citations, then perhaps your theory can be summarized here. (2) Fractal-ish cosmogeny (as a religious/philosophical idea about the structure of the Universe) might be the topic of a notable article, ideally backed up by scholarly articles tying together the similar beliefs of the Raelians, Bryusov, etc. Bm gub (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Dear (User talk:Bm gub). Thank you for your opinion. I think you agree that Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter is not only the theory of nowadays. It is a whole world outlook with ancient history, like atomism. Only in last century it become understand that the theory must be approved mathematically as it necessary for modern science standards. As a whole world outlook the theory is in focus of our view can not be dependent of quantity of published articles in scientific journals. Of course it must be on the Wikipedia. Atomism is a part of the Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, at the same way, as circular motion of things is a part of development in philosophy. If you think that it necessary to add some reference or publish some new articles on the theme – but it was already done. Some publications and references in scientific journals simply was not called because of absence of place on the page. For example, shot list here:

  • Maurizio Michelini. The Physical Reality Underlying the Relativistic Mechanics and the Gravitational Interaction. – arXiv: physics/0607136 v1, 14 Jul 2006.
  • S.G. Fedosin. Electromagnetic and Gravitational Pictures of the World. // Apeiron, Vol. 14, No. 4, P. 385-413, 2007.
  • S.G. Fedosin, (Contemporary Issues of Physics. In Search for the New Principles), Editorial URSS, Moscow. (2002) 192 pp. ISBN 5-8360-0435-8. (in Russian).
  • Jaakkola T., Moles M., Vigier J.-P. Empirical Status in Cosmology and the Problem of the Nature of Redshifts // Astronomische Nachrichten, 1979, Vol. 300, No. 5, P. 229–238.
  • Fedosin S.G. Problems of fundamental physics and possible ways of their solution // Cognition and physical reality (Russian Journal), V. 9, No. 2, 2004, P. 34 - 42.
  • R. L. Oldershaw .Hadrons As Kerr-Newman Black Holes. Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, arXiv:astro-ph/0701006v2 .
  • R. L. Oldershaw. The Meaning Of The Fine Structure Constant. Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, arXiv:0708.3501v1 [physics.gen-ph].
  • Fedosin S.G., Kim A.S., Shakhurdin V.I. Principle of modelling of extreme conditions of space objects. The power approach // VINITI, No. 3072-В00 from 06.12.2000, 12 pages.
  • Fedosin S.G. and Kim A.S. THE MOMENT OF MOMENTUM AND THE PROTON RADIUS // Russ. Phys. J., V. 45, 2002, P. 534 – 538.

As for Gandalf61, User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:EdJohnston opinion about deletion of the page. The page Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter was generated in February of 2008. No one commentary or discussion was on the Talk page from this members of Wiki. But suddenly in March of 2008 they tell about deletion of the page. What is this? It is very like to attack of some people. Of cource for somebody it is much more convinient to destroy then to build. So I appeal to Wikipedia editors to take into considerations possibilitiy of this attack, which has no real foundation. Fedosin (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you have identified a bunch of articles which no one has ever cited. Fedosin, Oldershaw, and Michelini are writing this stuff and uploading it to the ArXiv, but nobody is reading or using it. Zero citations across the board. Jaakola et. al. had an alternative cosmology (steady-state, tired light, etc.), but not the cosmology this article is about. Apeiron is well-known as an unrefereed "crackpot journal" and not generally a reliable source.
Before you complain about destruction/censorship, please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a science journal for the publication of new cosmology theories, or the advertisement/promotion of little-known theories. Whether or not a theory is "new" or "little known" is a judgement call, guided by principles like WP:NN and WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, and that call will be made by the editors' consensus, as with any encyclopedia. You are welcome to present evidence and arguments that your theory is notable, reasonably weighted, and based on reliable sources, but please do not pretend that there is some free-speech right for all articles to exist. Bm gub (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Dear (User talk:Bm gub). First of all, you must prove all your arguments. Give us evidence that main thesis and conclusions of theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter was not used in scientific research and was not published in scientific journals? Can you say exactly how many publications must be on the theme and after it you say all right? Can you prove that the theory has no ever cited ? Please give us some references where the theory is found to be false or have mistakes and so on?

About your opinion that Fedosin, Oldershaw, and Michelini and so on are writing this stuff and uploading it to the ArXiv, but nobody is reading or using it. Your opinion is quite wrong. Nobody in science can not have new results in the theory without knowing of foundations of theory which must be used. I must repeat again that the theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter is not simply a cosmology. The theory is world outlook and so give us a lot of new results in many different fields.

In addition to 23 references on the page Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, and to 9 references on publications, which are above, please check of the Publications List at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw shows over 50 articles in refereed journals. Is it too little for you? Fedosin (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

SPIRES shows one citation for 11 Oldershaw papers. The one citation is to an technical experimental note, in French, itself with no further citations. Clicking through "citations" links on a ADS search for "robert oldershaw" shows 70 total citations to 26 of Oldershaw's 46 papers. These are (1) dozens and dozens from *other* Oldershaw papers, (2) two from the unrefereed crackpot journal "Foundations of Physics", and (3) several citations to Oldershaw's non-fractal cosmology articles like [1] and [2], and (4) two from Alfven, the other lone anti-Big-Bang guy. Fedosin on Spires shows one article only, and no citations to it. "Fedosin" on ADS shows zero. This is the standard way of gauging interest in a physics theory, and what I have seen (barely a few citations to 20 years of articles) is basically "zero interest". Bm gub (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here some comments from: Talk:Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter.

The page is useful, don^t delete!--MiraLeon (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


I am new to Wikipedia so I do not know if I am doing this correctly, but I would like to speak in support of Fedosin article on Infinite Hierarchical Nesting. I have worked in the area of discrete fractal paradigms and hierarchical cosmological modeling for over 30 years. This basic paradigm has a long history, which can be traced back to Democritus and Lao Tse in about the 5th century BC. Many scientists and artists and philosophers who have studied nature have "rediscovered" the discrete hierarchical paradigm over the centuries. Spinoza's metaphysics is based on the paradigm. It is very much worth considering and taking seriously.

Fedosin's article has grammatical problems and includes some sketchy versions of this paradigm, but it is a reasonable start. It is reductionism, rather than "atomism", that Fedosin really wants to question. The strength of Wikipedia is that articles become better and more useful as many people add their expertise to the articles.

Why not keep this article on Infinite Hierarchical Nesting for 6 months to a year and see if develops in a positive way.

Some of the arguments for deletion are arguments "from authority", and basically say 'this is not the way I think, so it must be wrong'. Healthy science with a capacity for progress requires that we allow fringe" ideas. Most of the best scientific ideas have come from the "fringes": like a patent inspector 3rd class in 1905, self-taught Faraday, Mendel, Wegner and his continental drift, Spinoza, Copernicus,etc. We should learn from history so that we do not repeat our mistakes.

Please do not censor work on the Infinite Hierarchical Paradigm. Rloldershaw (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely, Rob Oldershaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rloldershaw (talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rob, please add your comments to the following page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_Hierarchical_Nesting_of_Matter. That is what the admins will read when deciding whether to delete or keep. Bm gub (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC

  • Keep The page is useful, don’t delete. Moreover, I think you agree that Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter is very important for the next development of science.--MiraLeon (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Comment Reasons for participating: In his long diatribe above Fedosin questioned my motives for taking part in this AfD. I gave my opinion above because I saw this AfD in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology), which I scan regularly. No one has invited me to come here or canvassed my opinion or tried to influence my opinion in any way.
I invite Den Israel, MiraLeon and Rloldershaw to be similarly open about their reasons for participating in this AfD. I note that these are all new accounts whose only contributions to Wikipedia so far have been in this AfD debate. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would observe that Roldershaw, MiraLeon, and Fedosin appear to be three of the authors credited in the references. Bm gub (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is beyond saving from a simply grammatical standpoint. I cannot make heads or tails of half of it, meaning anyone but the author would be lost in trying to salvage anything from this. Most of the referenced material has no relevance to the subject of the article (that which I'm not even sure of). Furthermore it seems to be purported as a scientific theory instead of metaphysics/philosophy/etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.182.37 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2008
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.