Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space mixing theory

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space mixing theory

The reference at the bottom of the page promises to lead to a journal site. If so then it is an odd journal: it has only one article. A legitimate journal that publishes an article which lays out the principles of "space mixing theory" would hardly be called the "journal of space mixing theory": a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here. The article is not published in any known journal, nor does it have any citations. It should be classed as an intellectual vanity page. Bambaiah 10:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD log; completing nomination. --cesarb 00:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I don't understand a word of this article, and I'm suspicious, but I'm not so sure it is delete material. The journal exists (has an ISSN) and has two articles, not one [1]. The editor is in the physics department at Purdue [2] but what he does there I don't know and it is suspicious that his article does not give a Purdue affilliation. I believe this is "alternative physics". Ahah, we already mention the subject at Anti-gravity. Should be clarified but kept. --Zero 13:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • My guess is that he is a grad student, but it's strange that he doesn't have his own web site with links to this paper. michael 03:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment that reference in Anti-gravity is no coincidence. That reference was added the same day that the Space mixing theory article was written...by the same contributor. The fact that there is a reference made in Anti-gravity unfortunately cannot tell us anything about the veracity of the topic.Tobycat 06:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is original research. For something like this, there should be a number of articles on this topic in places like arxiv.org or citeseer, and/or there should be articles on this topic published in peer-reviewed philosophy journals. Wikipedia articles should be on topics that lots of people are talking about, and not as a means of promoting one individuals new research. (However, I do envision the day when WP could open doors to orig. research; however, the number of basic physics/math pages would need to be 50x detailed than they are today. WP does not yet adequately cover basic topics). linas 00:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I get about 800 google hits for "space mixing" and 1130 for "space mixing theory" [3], so this seems to be significant enough for an article here. --MarSch 16:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• rewrite into something coherent. Right now the article is gibberish, but there is a published model known as "space mixing theory" out there, which is notable enough to be in Wikipedia if I'm remembering which one it is correctly. I may take a stab at this in my copious free time if the article survives VfD. --Christopher Thomas 19:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why wait until after VFD? Editors are encouraged to edit articles, with only a few restrictions for technical reasons, to improve them whilst VFD discussions are in progress. You have the opportunity to get 4 "original research" and 1 "unverifiable nonsense" votes struck through here. Uncle G 16:50, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
    • Because if the VfD passes, it saves me the trouble of having to wrap my mind around yet another pseudoscientific pet theory, and of searching out valid external references. If I thought it was likely I'd find them, I'd do it, but it's not looking like much turned up when other users searched. --Christopher Thomas 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it passes the alltheweb test. CAPS LOCK 00:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete Unverifiable. Original research. Online journal as a reference is laughable. mikka (t) 01:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I looked at the hits on both the Google and the Yahoo search engines and they all seem to be either related to this very article in Wikipedia or to an apparent press release sent out about the site in the external link. With one except: there is a link to the site at Zeal.com contributed by an editor "tom_m". It is just a coincidence that the eidtor of the journal is Tom Matz? I don't know but this doesn't seem to have much support out there. DS1953 02:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete Original research/hoax. I can't find any independent mention of this online (google only yields references to author's website and wikipedia mirrors). Article doesn't make sense; the paper itself looks like a hoax (full of "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" type statements). michael 02:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More non-notable crankery. Quale 04:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as woowoocruft. (Nonverifiable vanity nonsense.) DreamGuy 05:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is heavy philosophical topic, well written, and couched a tad too professionally leading easily leading to some of the above conculions to delete w/o a careful read. Needs clean in a sense needs dumbed down some for a popular article which action should also result in an expansion into a better length. Fabartus 06:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete it seems that this is a theory subcribed to by a handful of people at best. Most of the google results seem to be directories/listings of protosciences to which anyone could add anything. If its rewritten and widespread acceptance is verified, I could be persuaded to change my vote. --Xcali 06:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just because the word theory is in the title doesn't make it real science. In the absence of peer-reviewed academic journals, I don't see how this can be anything but original research.Tobycat 06:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Crackpottery. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional delete. The article makes sense, but my only problem is the 'original research' one. So, if someone can add a reference from any kind of respected scientific journal (and not one specifically about space-mixing), my vote will change to keep. --Scimitar 14:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Elaborate and amusing, but ultimately non-notable original research. –Joke137 15:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I think that many of you are missing the point. It doesn't have to be true, respectable, or good science to be included. We have articles about flat-earthers, perpetual motion machines, and all sort of crackpot things. You have to apply accepted deletion standards, not scientific standards. --Zero 15:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that many of us are not missing the point. WP isn't a collection of every crackpot "theory", and WP has no duty to help promote obscure nonsense. Notable crankery is encyclopedic just as nearly any notable subject is, but non-notable crankery should be squashed. Original research + non-notable crankery + vanity = not encyclopedic. Quale 19:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • My understanding was that it wasn't quite either of these. If the crackpottery in question is Notable, then it's significant enough to be catalogued (in an appropriately short, encyclopedic, and NPOV article). If someone could reasonably be expected to come to Wikipedia asking what "space mixing theory" is, then keep it. If it's obscure enough that nobody would bother, then I don't see why it would be included. This was one of the main points of contention for harmonics theory (now on its second VfD, after I'd thought I could take a break from the drama involved). Of course, both of the viewpoints expressed here came up there too. --Christopher Thomas 20:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think I understand where you're coming from, although I don't completely agree. Suppose for a moment, that there is only a single source for a particular crank theory. This may be the case with Space Mixing Theory as the Space Mixing Journal seems to be the only source, and there seems to be only a single proponent (thus the charge of vanity). There's nothing that WP can add to simply reporting what that single source says or else it automatically becomes original research. I know you are knowledgable enough to apply accepted physics to a crank theory and point out some of the problems. But unless you have an external reference that does this debunking, you simply can't do this without falling into original research. In the case of Space Mixing, I have no idea why anyone would come to WP hoping to find out about this as The Space Mixing Journal is the sum total of the world knowledge in this "field". Unless there are other references to this crankery, WP simply can't add to what the Space Mixing Journal says in any way without doing original research. As far as I see it, this leaves two options. Parrot the nonsense proposed by the cranks, or just ignore it as non-notable crankery as does all of the physics community and almost all of the rest of the world. Notable crackpottery should be reported in WP, but since it's notable, there will be more to say about it than simply echoing the crackpot's nonsense. I hope this makes my views on deleting this and other non-notable crackpottery more clear even if we don't agree on these points. I do appreciate your efforts trying to reduce the amount of pseudo-scientific nonsense in WP. The crank articles created by others that you edit/rewrite aiming for NPOV are much improved by your hard work. Quale 02:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I feel that in the type of case you object to (if I understand your viewpoint correctly), it would be straightforward enough to delete such articles based on their being non-notable. If a crackpot theory has created enough of a stir to be notable, then arguments for and against will have been made by many people. Not necessarily in reviewed journals, but in enough places that a NPOV article shouldn't count as "original work". For HT, the rebutting material can be found quite readily, mostly in the form of factual articles or texts on the relevant topics (ask on the HT VfD page or talk page for a list, as it's off-topic here). --Christopher Thomas 04:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Under the heading of "Physics" this is original research by far margin, compare scholar.google.com, the pre-print servers, or citebase. It may have minor but signifant followship in philosophy, as this area isn't so easy to decide using online sources, but the author should be required to demonstrate this in the article. It's not the reader's task to proof verifiability and relevance. Delete unless reworded and verified as philosophical topic. --Pjacobi 21:22, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be original research. --Carnildo 21:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Leave a note on my talk page if this turns out to be anything more than original research. — Phil Welch 23:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original reserch - Tεxτurε 18:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.