Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorce theory

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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:11Z

[edit] Sorce theory

Sorce theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unverifiable pseudoscientific theory. There are only around 500 hits for "Sorce theory" on Google, and hardly any are actual sites, most being posts in forums and such. There are no Appropriate Sources per the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision to treat this as a scientific theory, and there aren't enough sources to consider it as an internet phenomenon like Time Cube. Philosophus T 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete item that lacks decent sources as even being a theory. Doczilla 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - for lacking any reliable sources. A article like this needs to have some good sources to back all the information up. Jayden54 20:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonnotable pseudoscience P4k 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. All that I can add is that this is blatantly OR. --EMS | Talk 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed opinion to Stong Delete after seeing Gseletko's reposnse below. --EMS | Talk 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete -- This does not rise to notability. --ScienceApologist 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also possible copyvio from http://www.crank.net/aether.html. --Wtshymanski 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there is a copyvio here, but the text comes directly from http://www.anpheon.org/. Do note however that I have a hard time believing that the owner of anphenon.org minds their message being put up here in Wikipedia. EMS | Talk 04:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • From past experience, if the creator of the article chooses to fight, the text will be licensed in an appropriate way as soon as they hear about the copyvio claim, if it isn't already. With a pseudotheory this small, if it isn't the creator making the article, then the person is nearly always a friend of the creator. --08:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophus (talk • contribs) 03:43, December 29, 2006
      • For the record (not that it has any relevance), the author of the wiki article is not a friend, collegue or acquaintance of the creator of the theory. Gseletko 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • See talk:sorce theory. The article's creator has responded and claims permission to use material on the web site. As there is not good reason to doubt that, I consider the copyvio issue to be closed. Note that this does not change my opinion that this article should be deleted. --EMS | Talk 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per above William M. Connolley 11:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 04:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I guess per current criteria. I believe that under the proposed WP:SCIENCE guideline it could fly as being of historical interest. TSO1D 04:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't appear to me that there is any historical notability to the topic, which seems to be a modern aether pseudotheory. Could you explain the reasoning behind your assertion? --Philosophus T 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think you are right. When I first read the article I had the impression that it was a theory popular in the 60's that now has been rejected by most of the scientific establishment. However, now I see that it is just a neo-ehter theory that has virtually remained unchanged (in theory and popularity) in recent decades. As such, it probably has no notability whatsoever. TSO1D 15:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Publication in 1965 which cites and references various notable works of that time seems like ample historical notability to me. Gseletko 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • The issue is one of who cites the theory, not who the theory cites. Any fool can hang onto another's coattails. Notable theories have (or have had) prominent researchers paying attention to them, not the other way around. --EMS | Talk 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has been revised to suit the wiki guidelines more accurately. The notability of the theory is provided within the references in the form of two separate works on the subject by experts in the field. As these do not seem to be enough, I will be attempting to acquire further sources from the experts on the subject. Gseletko 12:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The "references" are e-books and websites, not independent sources. HEL 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • E-books are just another form of publication. If you are suggesting these are invalid notable sources because of their form I will happily provide you with a list of varous wiki articles on similar subjects which refer to ebooks/edocuments as their references. Gseletko 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Following is the current criteria for fields of science as described at WP:SCIENCE. I've answered each point as it applies to the article for Sorce Theory.
In general, an item in the field of science is probably notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. It is part of the corpus of generally accepted scientific knowledge.
(No)
2. It is considered a possible explanation by a part of the scientific community independent of its creator.
(Yes) - At the very least the authors of the publications which are provided in the references. These are all separate individuals. Further members of the scientific community that consider this as a possible explanation can be found at the various forums where this topic is discussed.
3. It is advocated by at least one researcher who is prominent in the relevant field. (Yes) - The creator of the theory is at least one researcher who is prominent in the relevant field.
4. It is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher
(Yes) - Again, the publications that can be found in the reference section of the Sorce Theory article, are peer-reviewed papers and as such, they can collectively be seen as evidence of the work of 'several' researchers.
5. It is supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
(Not sure)
6. It is previously thought of as correct or plausible, or is otherwise of historical interest.
(Yes) - I can only speak for myself when I say that I certainly find it interesting and am of the opinion that it is valuable information to have on the Wikipedia, as such I don't see why other people would not also find it interesting. As for historical interest: It is a valid scientific theory first published in 1965... I don't know what more need be said.
7. It is advocated by a prominent persons or for political or religious reasons, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
(No)
8. It is well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction.
(No)
9. It is believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
(No)
10. It is notable because there is strong criticism from the scientific community.
(Yes) - The theory recieves constant criticism whenever it is brought up in the scientific community. This can be witnessed from following the various forums that the topic is discussed in where the individuals discussing the matter are also members of the scientific community. Here is just ONE example.
Theories are causal models that try to explain how the world works. For a scientific theory to be considered notable, it should fulfill at least one of the following criteria:
1. It has been included in general or specialized textbooks.
(Yes) - Definition of a Textbook: "a book used in teaching, giving the main facts about a subject". All three publications in the reference section meet this definition, and each of those is full of notable citations and references.
2. It has been widely cited in its research area relative to other publications in the same area. Self-citations and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded. Inclusion in a peer-reviewed publication, especially in a respected journal with a reputation for rigorous inclusion standards and high impact, is an additional factor to be considered but not by itself a necessary or sufficient criterion.
(Yes) - It has been widely cited in its research area relative to other publications in the same area.
3. The creators have received a major scientific award, such as the Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, for it. "Best paper" or "best conference presentation award" are rarely ever considered major.
(Not sure)
4. The scientific merit of the theory is disputed in, or rejected by, the scientific community, but it has received significant attention in political circles and ongoing coverage in the popular media. In this case the article should make note of this status.
(No)
5. The theory or model historically met any of the above criteria but has since been superseded by an alternative theory, or it has been used as an example in a notable account on the history of science. In this case the article should make note of this status.
(No)
6. The theory has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants.
(Not sure) - But I'm working on this one.
From the points above it seems clear to me that Sorce Theory more then meets the minimum requirements for notability of a wiki article and as such should not be deleted.
The article has also been revised to fit with the "Neutral point of view" policy and as such should not be deleted.
I believe that the revised article has also resolved the implication of not following the "No original research" policy and as such should not be deleted.
Gseletko 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment in reposnse to Gseletko: With regards to WP:SCIENCE:
    1. This is a proposed policy/quideline. As such, it it less than authoritative.
    2. This proposal is curently undergoing masive change. At the time of this writing, the 10 standards for inclusion have been reduced to 7, and the wording in the ones not removed tightenned up so as to make inclusion of theories like this one harder to achieve. (It would not surprise me to find that Gseletko's posting above is in fact responsible for these edits.)
It also seems to me that Gseletko is treating sorce theory as its own "relevant field". For exmaple: It has never been considered to be likely true by the overall scientific community at any time since its inception, and yet Gseletko is claiming that is passes muster in regard to this standard (which admitedly as written did not include the "overall scientific community" clause, but that is obviously what is meant). Another example is treating its creator as being prominent in the "relevant field". IMO, the relevant fields are theoretical physics, particle physics, and relativity (or spacetime physics). Sorce theory lack prominence in all of these fields. --EMS | Talk 06:05, 31 December 2006 (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.