Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Science on Wikipedia 
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions
 Points of interest related to Physics on Wikipedia 
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Cleanup
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page


Contents

[edit] Science

[edit] Mae-Wan Ho

Mae-Wan Ho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a living person has sat since February 2006 without any reliable third party sources. Given her highly controversial opinions, that are argueabley pseudoscience, it's essential an article like this have substantial third party sourcing. Otherwise, it can only alternate between a hatchet job or a promo piece. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, does "third party" mean "secondary source" as in "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" or does it mean "tertiary source" as in "encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources". Are reliably sourced news articles or journal articles acceptable "third party" sources? Are her own reliably sourced books or journal articles acceptable sources to describe her own views? --EPadmirateur (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"Third-party" means that Mae-Won didn't write it. Nothing she writes on her own can possibly establish her notability, regardless of who published it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I vote for deletion and agree that this article can never amount to anything because the only stuff written about this person is either from herself or from non-reliable sources such as purveyors of alternative medicine or anti-GM activist publications. Mainstream science essentially ignores her pseudoscientific views. Ttguy (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteKeep as not having established notability through reliable third-party sources. This lack of reliable third-party sources means that the article has, at times, devolved into edit-wars over whether her CV substantiates fields of expertise claimed in her 'biographical sketch' (both sourced from the subject). There just isn't enough here for a solid article, let alone one that needs to carefully navigate a controversial subject. HrafnTalkStalk 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nature article cited by Tim Vickers below meets the threshold of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, because Mae-Wan Ho is notable by a number of measures. Third party citations have come and gone in the article that would support that. However, I doubt that any reliable sources or neutral presentation would be allowed by other editors. Since its inception, this article has served as a personal sandbox for a few editors who used it consistently to publish discrediting information about her, even after the material had been removed, and to remove or strongly dispute any positive information that might be put in it.
For example, User:Ttguy has used a set of favorite items for discrediting Mae-Wan Ho:
  • From the beginning through to the present, that she is a vivisectionist who likes to burn rabbits' eyes (and is therefore a hypocrite): [1] [2] [3] [4]
  • Also from the beginning, that she believes living organisms don't follow second law of thermodynamics [5] [6] [7]
  • that she has been involved in cloning humans and therefore a hypocrite [8] [9]
  • that she is a "AIDS denier" and the "treatment she recommends is selenium and other antioxidants" [10] [11]
  • that her claimed academic credentials are "inflated" and simple claims of what fields she worked in are false: [12] [13] [14] [15] Ttguy even has [his own webpage containing his personal analysis of Ho's credentials, which he uses in the article and in the talk to support the claim that Mae-Wan Ho's credentials are don't match her claims
  • that she may have been fired for incompetence from an academic position [16]
  • when positive or balancing information is added, it's removed usually for trivial reasons [17] [18], including the one third party reference that made it into the article [19]: why? because it was "POV"
Also User:Hrafn has disputed what should be non-controversial edits, for trivial or contrived reasons [20] [21] [22]
It's ironic that the first two editors to jump in and vote to delete this article are Ttguy and Hrafn.
So this is what WP:BLP allows: the unbridled two-year-long campaign to discredit a person's reputation, where deleted material is constantly re-added, and where honest attempts at balance and neutrality are smacked down to the point where the only thing left to do is delete the article. It would be impossible to add any reliable third-party sources to this article in good faith because, I'm afraid, they would be removed for trivial reasons within a day. I have no interest in Mae-Wan Ho or her positions but I strongly oppose the kind of editor POV pushing and bullying that is evident in this article. I asked in another place "is this the way WP is supposed to work for biographies of living people who happen to do something some editors don't like?" Hey, I guess so, and when it gets really bad, we just delete the sandbox. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there has been substantial coverage in reliable third party sources that has been deleted from the article, then where are the difs? Please provide substantiation. All your other accusations are irrelevant to an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • EPadmirateur , It seems you want a biography based only on Ho's writings. You were fine with my removal of negative material sourced to her research paper (like the eye buring), but you're happy to have positive things sourced to Ho. The problems with this article stem from the fact, there's no third-party reliable material to go off. So, all the editors inject their own opinions, because that's all there is: opinion. Wikipedians are left to debate what's relevant and notable about her self-claimed work. Wikipedias policy on deleting non-notable bios is actually in the best interests of the bio subject, who are most harmed by the inevitable original research that's conducted on them. It's unfortunate that this article wasn't deleted at the beginning. --Rob (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not at all: I would gladly seek out reliable sources to provide information about her. However, I'm nearly certain that they would be removed for trivial or contrived reasons, as was done with the simple claim of what fields she has worked in. I thought that the policy for BLP was to provide balance as per WP:BLP#Criticism and praise and to avoid "biased or malicious content about living persons". If WP wants to permit POV pushing and bullying in BLPs as you seem to want to allow here, fine. Just let us all know, and by all means delete this article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You are free to show us the reliable sources right here. Please also show the diffs of where an editor has removed a reliable source. --Rob (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't searched for third party sources. Under the circumstances I don't much see the point. The two external sources that were removed mentioning Ho were deleted here.EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[23] is an article on a blog where they have interviewed Ho. I dunno if this contributes to notablility or not Ttguy (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[24] tells us that Ho attended a meeting along with 1400 other people. Not sure this contributes to notability either. She is mentioned once in the article. Ttguy (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea how reliable these sources would be viewed but they are the only two that have been added. Ho is certainly controversial and influential as these two citations show and also here. Her work is cited in Meaning of life, in Black people, in Rupert Sheldrake#The Presence of the Past, in Horizontal gene transfer. Her name is listed on the List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (original document here, page 2) and as writer on holistic science. She has 79 journal articles listed in PubMed. Those are 79 reliable third-party sources. Here are 13 articles or letters appearing in The Guardian about her or written by her. Here's a book review in New Scientist. Here's an interview, a lecture summary, a briefing to the European Parliament, etc. That's just for starters. I think there are dozens more third-party sources. What more do you want? How hard did the other editors try? --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You said "Those are 79 reliable third-party sources". Anything written by Ho is, by definition, not a third party source. I will review the other sources as much as I can shortly. --Rob (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Side comment: I think it would be a good idea of editors could go through the backlinks, and check how Ho has been used as a source in other Wikipedia articles. --Rob (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I think there are a couple of third party sources there that can be used in this article. I would also say that her own suitably published work can be cited as WP:RS when describing her ideas, as was the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're what you're talking about. I wanted people to review the backlinks, where Ho is sometimes cited, since those should be removed or replaced by cites from recognized authorities. Ho is not a recognized authority in any field, and shouldn't be cited as such. Unless/until Ho is mentioned by a third-party, Ho doesn't belong on Wikipedia, anywhere. --Rob (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I think there are plenty of third-party sources (see above). She certainly has scientific credentials (see PubMed list above). But her notability comes from her controversial stances on a number of things, which can be reliably documented in third party news reports, interviews, etc. In addition, her own papers in reliable journals and books published by reliable independent publishers can also be used as a reliable sources for her own views (see the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published). --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Except (apparently) if these papers show her in a bad light (eg Burning rabbits eyes) - then these papers can not be used !!!! - right? Ttguy (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the experimental work on corneas can and should be used if it is relevant to her notability. Apparently even her AIDS denialism is not notable by the third-party source standard (I couldn't find anything), only her anti-GMO work. --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this seems to be a very interesting person, she has some very interesting ideas, a whole lot of wrong ideas and possibly she doesn't always know what she's actually talking about. In addition, she seems to be somewhat hypocritical, and may in some contexts be considered a 'ho'. I've been somewhat rude, maybe I've made some overstatements, my apologies for that, probably not all she says is rubbish, it may in fact be very interesting to analyse how this woman has come to combine wisdom and knowledge with misinterpretations and other nonsense. Anyway, it should be the task of Wikipedia to clarify the whole mystery and controversy surrounding this person. 84.194.237.100 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep apparently at least borderline notable as a scientist. About 60 published papers in peer-reviewed biology journals, cited reasonably according to Web of Science (GS is not helpful here, the papers are back in the 70s) Her papers on theoretical evolution in Journal of theoretical biology, a mainstream journal though in my opinion willing to publish pure speculation had 76, 65, etc citations. Some of her perfectly orthodox cell biology papers in good journals had 128, 71, 70. This counts as quite respectable. Her later work is not science, nor is it published by significant scientific publishers. However, it's widely noticed. I think it's deplorable, but it's notable. DGG (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable scientist with notable views on notable subject. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep a notably bad scientist. Not notable for their research or expertise, but the extreme opinions exposed by this person have gathered wide notice and a strongly negative reaction from their peers. See Nature news article for example. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Note - I've added some reliable sources criticizing this publication. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Be very careful here. She is a very controversal figure, but no assertion of her non-notability should be credited without a review of just who is asserting it and with what motivations. Notably bad might be very accurate, but quite notably bad. --Blechnic (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree completely with DGG. Her views on GM crops are clearly wrong to me, but she's a notable opponent. --Crusio (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Off topic. I'm not ready to dismiss everything she says, but I have gotten rather tired of hearing her at times. I work in agricultural genetics, so I've probably heard a bit more than most. --Blechnic (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per TimVickers, DGG, Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synaptogenomics

Synaptogenomics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google scholar gives three hits from the group that introduced the term (one of whom it appears wrote the article) and little evidence that the concept has received coverage elsewhere. A general Google search also does not indicate any widespread use of the term. I do not think that the concept (however valid) has received the kind of independent coverage from reliable secondary sources required to write a neutral encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Tending towards delete or merge to....what I am not sure - unless something surprises me. I'll notify WP:MED. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:NEO: This is a "protologism"; it is not widely used and the page appears to have been created to promote usage of a term. If the term catches on such that there is a field of research to describe here then a page would be justified, but otherwise not notable and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any neologism with "-omics" is suspect. It just indicates the type of science where you fire a shotgun at a problem in expectation of some results. Not quite like Ernest Rutherford and his helium atoms through. But I digress. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, in PubMed two papers use this word, both from 2006 and both from the same authors. This is not a notable or widespread term. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven M. Greer

Steven M. Greer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no indication of the subject's notability, and the article seems to be blatant advertising to promote the subjects commercial activities, including his $995 "training sessions" [25] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm tempted to suggest BLP1E applies, but the subject might not agree with me, so I'll stick with the basics. This person is not notable enough for an encyclopaedic article to be written, in that multiple non-trivial mentions in independent reliable sources have not been provided to satisfy our verifiability policy. The sources that are present are mainly self-published and/or faith-based (to whatever extent). The archived OMNI piece is the best source provided, but even that provides essentially no biographical information. There really is very little salvageable material in the article as written. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - over 50 Google Books hits for "Stephen Greer UFO" suggest he's notable in his field, however kooky that field may be. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Greer is a conman or deluded, and his fans have been making trouble on the page. Fifty hits doesn't prove notability, just verbosity. Maybe it should be deleted and redirected to Disclosure Project, since that is Greer's most notable project and involves some notable but confused individuals (including an Apollo astronaut). 131.215.64.195 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • IMO, we don't exclude articles on conmen or deluded individuals from Wikipedia; nor do we delete articles because someone's fans are making trouble. Fifty printed books reference the guy; that sounds like some level of importance to me. It feels like you are making deletion arguments based on your opinion of the subject individual and what he does, which isn't what we should be doing here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You could be right. But I don't see any publishers there that look reputable. Rather it all seems to be publishers of fringe stuff with doubtful standards. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the one non-trivial reference is the book that Amazon says is published by "Crossing point Inc" This company does not have a website and is not listed in Writer's Market (the 2006 edition). Since this publisher then either does not exist or is a tiny operation (a self-publisher?) this is not a reliable source for a BLP on a fringe topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • merge to Disclosure Project, this article fails WP:N, WP:BIO, etc. (per TimVickers). I happy to leave debate on whether Disclosure Project meet WP:N to another day. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. His books and their publishers are extremely iffy, and in any case his work is not notable per WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Sheffield Steel and Tim Vickers. Not notable. 9 redirect pages? Is that usual? Doug Weller (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As mentioned above Greer has backing of some very credible persons(Apollo astronaut or John Callahan, Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington DC). He authored also several books which are available on Amazon.com. The users who initiated this deletion Malcolm Schosha (talk) and 131.215.64.195 (talk) have never contributed anything noteworthy to this page. They instead continuously removed content they called "nonsense", BS and were unwilling to discuss their views further in the talk sections. As a final argument in a non-existent debate they've marked the page for deletion. These are not the constructive principles Wikipedia is based upon. -- I-netfreedOm (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I hope you don't intend removing the AfD tag again if you are interested in keeping to Wikipedia guidelines. It clearly states you should not remove it. And this discussion should be about the issues, not used for an attack on other editors. Doug Weller (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Wikipedia also states that no vulgar language should be used in discussions. Citing such quotes from the mentioned users are by no means "personal attacks". This is part of the problem. If this offends you it is because on the one hand you demand complete compliance to the policies on the other hand you are silent about the mentioned violations. Why are you posing as unbiased if you've opted for deletion? I-netfreedOm (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment That's a further attack, this time on me. I note that you are an SPA, which is interesting. Doug Weller (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject has given talks and maintains a website opn fringe theories. He also has written books on the subject, but these do not seem to be notable outside of a very small circle of fellow enthusiasts. Unless something more substantial comes up, does not meet notability standards. --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Yes, he is a proponent of fringe conspiracy theories but he appears to be notable since there is sufficient coverage of him by reliable sources. GoogleNews gives 70 hits[26] for "Steven Greer" ufo. Most of them contain nontrivial coverage of Greer personally and his activities and often provide some brief biographical info as well (e.g. references to him as a former emergency room physician). GoogleBooks gives 49 hits[27] for the same search. I think this does satisfy WP:BIO:" If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". In this case there is a fair amount of nontrivial coverage over an extended period of time. I would say that he passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to non-trivial sources noted above, one finds numerous citations of public lectures, seminars and distinguished speaker engagements in the U.S., Canada and abroad. He is a regular guest on respected radio programs as well. IMO, one must be a bit lenient in ascribing notability for an admittedly "fringe" subject matter, as that somewhat prejudical label itself presupposes lack of credibility, and thus unnecessarily weights against potentially quite valid research and discourse. Until arenas of discussion are accepted into the mainstream, they obviously will be accepted by fewer numbers than mainstream subjects, but the label of "fringe" studies is not a either/or, black or white idea. There's a continuum—a spectrum, if you will—of controversial studies about. Disagreement with the core or premise of said subject matter does not preclude allowing for serious discourse and subsequent acknowledgment from within (and without) the related field of study. One of the main points of contention here, it seems, is Greer's work on behalf of so-called "free energy" device development efforts. Critics cry "impossible", and throw him in the fringe basket, but this whole issue is tied to the subject of ET visitation, a subject that is becoming increasingly less "fringe" (Hon. Paul Hellyer of Canada, the Vatican, Sen. Kucinich), and the evidence is pointing ever so strongly that ETs' presence is real. That immediately brings forth the question of the technologies used for their inter-stellar travel to reach us, which would obviously defy "known" laws of physics, and certainly point to the use of anti-gravity, free-energy and other devices that have been heretofore labeled "impossible", and "fringe" ideas. Wikidpedia needs to nudge its least-common-denominator standards a bit, and give some credence to the serious discourse around issues that might make the scientifically-intransigent a bit too uncomfortable. There's room here in Wikipedia for both the tried-and-true AND the truly-trying.Dancingeyes (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If the subject is notable, it would be more helpful to substantiate that in the article than to write claims about it here. So please add evidence of notability to the article. So far nothing has changed there, not even the promotion for his commercial activities. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely, my belief that the article should be deleted is based on looking at the article and assessing the quality of its sources. If you improve the article, then I may change my mind. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur completely. Notability has nothing to do with whether somebody is right or wrong about something. The proponents of two mutually exclusive hypotheses can both be notable, even though at least one of them must be wrong. This article just does not establish notability, even among fellow travelers. --Crusio (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification., Crusio. That has been one of the more unbiased and informative comments I've read so far, and I appreciate your sense of fairness. I'll certainly encourage the inclusion (and contribute, where I feel qualified to do so) these cited-source additions to the article. Dancingeyes (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Greer has gathered over 500 Witnesses from covert projects in the government. Surely something is going on here. (Edit: flyboyqw 5 june 08 - On the notable subject: from the wiki notable page, Criteria 6. "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." I suppose a "lifelong member of the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society" qualifies. Link is in the main wiki page. There. Happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboyqw (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Whether "something is going on here" or not is completely besides the point. AfD is to establish notability not The Truth. --Crusio (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: the preceding comment is the only edit of Flyboyqw. --Crusio (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So, we have a new SPA I-netfreedOm and an even newer editor whose only edit is the above. 'Surely something is going on here'. :-) Doug Weller (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please explain what "SPA" means? Thanks. Dancingeyes (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
SPA=Single Purpose Account (see WP:SPA). User Flyboyqw has made only one single edit on Wikipedia up till now (the one just above), I-netfreedOm has only made edits to this discussion, the page on Greer, and user talkpages related to this. You yourself, although in the last month your only contributions have to this subject, are not an SPA, as you have contributed to other articles on other subjects in the past. As WP:SPA explains, SPA is not to be used pejorative, but descriptive only. However, if many SPAs participate in a single AfD, that raises the suspicion of them being sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This does indeed help. Much appreciated. — Dancingeyes (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me suggest that "500 Witnesses from covert projects in the government" supports the notability of the Disclosure Project far more than it does this biography. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I did indeed create a new account, but not just for that edit above. I realize that this is not common practice but I am not going to be an active or permanent sockpuppet. This topic is so sensitive (ridicule, even worse at times) that I decided to create a new account with a new IP for security reasons. Don't forget that a SPA not only has negative aspects (abuse) but also positive as it is effective at protecting one's privacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboyqw (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't understand how people can be so ignorant. Even with the latest development regarding ET life, the vatican declaration, witnesses by the 10s of thousands, coming from the intelligence community, the military, NASA, Pilots, we are still debating the ET presence. Here, we are not debating if we should delete the entry for Dr. Steven Greer. We are back at debating if ET presence is a reality. With the overwhelming evidence presented to me in the last 2 years, I can now convinced we have been visited, many times too. The work Steven Greer has accomplished in the last 20 some years is of critical importance and this entry should be updated and maintained. Another point I would like to make is that, the haters are often found to come here to delete the material. This is getting very irritating. That's the most annoying aspect of Wiki. People like myself and other people that have been in contact with Steven should be in a position to put relevant information in here. Basically, if you don't know what the heck you are writting about, stop writting and stop deleting the entries or the important text pieces. It should also be noted that Steven is a well known speakers in various radio shows and conferences, including but not limited to the IIIHS, Coast to Coast AM, The World Puja Network and various other shows.
Comment Now, what else do you need to keep this article going? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs)
Comment And another SPA.... Makes one almost willing to believe that there really IS a conspiracy out there.... PLEASE, take a few minutes to read the discussion above and the linked policies. It does not matter at all for this AfD whether Greer is right or wrong. For all I care he could be a proponent of a flat Earth. What IS important is that we establish whether or not he is notable and for that we need reliable independent and verifiable sources. --Crusio (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment The number of sources listed is satisfying now? Or do we want more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree completely with Crusio that the issue here is nothing to do with whether the subject's theories are right or wrong , but with whether the necessary sources exist to establish notability. Nsk92 and others established above that they do exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Perhaps to avoid a merge, there would need to be some evidence that either Orion or AERO has any importance whatsoever. Otherwise he';s notable for running the Disclosure Project only and has the same unfortunate significance that it does. DGG (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The Orion Project has collected 342 000$ from donations so far, which is definitively of great importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If only to show how gullible people are. Sorry, but it had to be said. This article needs more input from the skeptical community. Plvekamp (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • rather, I would say that for a topic which supposedly millions of people believe to be real, that raising only that sum of money is an excellent indication of lack of notability for the project. DGG (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment On the contrary, I believe that people are waking up to a new understanding of our true nature. Science might not be able to mesure everything at the moment, just like science couldn't see or mesure ultra-violet or infrared in the past. But time will come where we can measure these things in a distant future. Your reality is based on your understanding of the current Physics. Can I pretends I understand everything that there is? Can we pretend we understand everything there is? If so, then we fall in the same traps as our ancestors. As long as it can't be measure, it's stupid and unacceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The addition of random UFO sources such as the self-published Leopizzi Harris, Paola, Exopolitics: How Does One Speak to a Ball of Light? or the self-published Kennedy, Judy, Beyond the Rainbow: Renewing the Cosmic Connection that are not cited in the article does nothing to establish notability. We need reliable sources that discuss Greer, not the Disclosure Project, not a passing reference to Greer in a discussion on UFOs in general - we need reliable sources that discuss Greer in particular as their main subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to give a few valid scientific points to this "debate". Let's analyze the definitions of "notability" (see: WP:BIO) and see if these can be applied to our subject. The basic criteria of notability: "..he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" which is applicable because many main stream media organizations reported on him and on his "Disclosure Project": see search term ""steven greer" disclosure" on GoogleNews. We can thus conclude that he is "presumed to be notable". We now have to prove that he is "generally notable". Quote: "A person is a "Creative professional" (for example quote:"...,authors") if they meet the following standard.... "The person's work either....(c) has won significant critical attention.." Dr. Greer's most widely publicized/reported project "Disclosure Project" (which is an immaterial work/product) indisputably satisfies this premise and thus enables us to label the subject as "Creative professional". We then successfully proved "general notability". Since the subject has met the prerequisites of both basic and general notability we have concluded the proof of Steven Greer's notability. I-netfreedOm (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Well said. I totally agree. Flyboyqw (talk) 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm not completely sure, but I think I detect a foot odor here... Just a suspicion. Plvekamp (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm suspicious enough to tag him as an SSP. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment These comments are out of line and off-topic. Please stick to the issue of notability, as has been so duly pointed out to me recently. — Dancingeyes (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Your are wrong this time, Watson. By the way your accusations show that my reasoning is correct and instead of bringing some arguments against my point you attack the messenger. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Tally: Can some-one please keep a count of what of the votes above are for delete/merge and what are four keep? A second count, separating out the single-purpose Greer advocates, also seems relevant. At the moment, I count 8 votes for delete and between 3 and 5 votes for keep, depending how you count. I realize Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Also: re. Greer's other projects: that they have raised money doesn't make them notable. I figure that the Disclosure Project is sadly notable, but is there any _substantial_ difference in goals or methods between Greer's three groups? There isn't any reason for three facets of the same thing to merit more article space. Also: if precedence means anything, I just browsed the history of hydrino theory. Here there was also someone (a Randell Mills) who acts like a conman and has his own posse of advocacy accounts. After a long debate, the result was that his article was merged into the hydrino theory page, since he wasn't notable enough without it. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would suggest that we also separate out the biased Greer opponents. With this I can count 4 keeps and 3 deletes. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Votes will not be tallied. This is a discussion, not a poll. Votes are not simply tallied by the admin who will close this AfD, rather the debate will be weighed by the discussion here with reference to wikipedia policies and guidelines. You may wish to consult Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:VOTE if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge to Disclosure Project. At the request of the operator of the Caltech anon who has been editing this page (who I encourage to civility), and because it was one of the last I worked on before I retired, I looked at this situation. Based on a search of Google's News archive, it seems that almost every story on Greer has been the about the Disclosure Project, so I do not see any reason for him to have a separate page. His other groups don't seem to be notable: there is exactly one news item that mentions them, and that is a fringe publication. Before I retired, I had flagged this page as needing monitoring for editing from UFO enthusiasts (see User talk:Michaelbusch). It seems to be more trouble than it is worth. So, just remove this page and merge anything that isn't already there into the Disclosure Project article. Greer's advocates will probably want to copy their current description of his two new groups. This would be excessive: because of the lack of third-party sources, I would keep the description brief. I have edited Disclosure Project to reflect this. I may check back on this AfD before it is done, but I do enjoy my retirement. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Could you please share your thoughts on the following comment of the Caltech anon you've mentioned. Just to ensure the neutrality of this discussion. Quote: "I know a couple of other Caltechers who have established accounts and addressed claims like yours in detail. See User:Michaelbusch and User:Philosophus. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" I-netfreedOm (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I know who the editor behind this account is, and that editor knows who I am and who Philosophus is. Unless required to do so, I will not break the anonymity. I agree with many of the views of the anon, but encourage civility. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-knot

Anti-knot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Other editors and I discussed the problems with this article long ago, but none of us got around to AFD'ing it the first time. In summary, 1) the term "anti-knot" appears to be a neologism, not used in any of the references, and I couldn't find a suitable reference using Google Scholar. 2) the content appears to be partly bogus, partly vague/speculative. The first proof assumes what it is trying to prove. The second uses a magical "knot energy" that does exactly what is needed. It's fair to say that the property needed of this knot energy is nontrivial and most likely an open problem. The "proof" given seems to be OR synthesized from the three references. 3) the purpose of this page is to explain that "anti-knots" in fact do not exist. This is in fact a well-known basic result (as explained in knot sum), so there isn't anything more to be said about the topic. C S (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect/Merge to knot theory, or a more suitable page? A brief mention of the result should be sufficient. For a ref., perhaps: Cromwell, Peter R. (2004). Knots and Links. Cambridge University Press, p. 90. ISBN 0521548314.  Theorem 4.6.1. Given a non-trivial knot K there is no 'anti-knot' K-1 such that the product K # K-1 is the trivial knot.—RJH (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess I could have just redirected to knot sum where the information is already there, as I said. The only problem I have with that is that "anti-knot" is a neologism. It is in Cromwell, true (the very last hit on Google Scholar, which I overlooked), but his use of it is not meant to indicate it is a standard term. So I would not want to propagate a neologism by mentioning the term in knot sum. --C S (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but I'm not sure that the term 'anti-knot' even needs to be mentioned. Or you could say an inverse knot, for example.—RJH (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redir per RJH. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to connected sum. I think the amount of text needed to be added to complete the merge would be very small, on the order of adding "That is, no knot can have an anti-knot that is its inverse element in the connected sum monoid." after the existing sentence "In three dimensions, the unknot cannot be written as the sum of two non-trivial knots." This is an important fact about knots that is already covered in connected sum and does not need a separate article but that could stand to be made a little more prominent there. The two supposed "proofs" in the anti-knot article, though, look worthless and should not be merged. If not merged, it should be deleted; it does not stand alone as a separate article in its current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've seen this non-existence of "anti-knots" mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia before. Maybe this should redirect to that. But at the moment I don't know where that is. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • PS: I don't see how the first proof works. It seems to be circular (pun not entirely intended). Michael Hardy (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing in here worth saving. Redir/Merge. Connected sum does a much better job of explaining the non-existence of "anti-knots", and the "application" to string theory is entirely bogus (because the "strings" in string theory exist in spaces with more dimensions and much more complex toplogy than 3D Euclidean space). Gandalf61 (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Changed my vote to Redir/Merge in case that helps to demonstrate consensus. However, I don't really understand why this AfD has been re-listed, as there was already a thorough discussion and no Keep votes - don't we already have a consensus ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Connected sum asserts that anti-knots do exist in higher dimensions; that makes the polemic against knot physics largely fallacious as well as inappropriate. Take it out. If we need to link this somewhere, <span id> now permits redirects to arbitrary points in text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect? One place where I find a valid proof of the non-existence of anti-knots is Eilenberg–Mazur swindle. Since this is a valid concept, but perhaps of interest only for proving the non-existence result, it should get redirected if it's deleted. I'm not sure where. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Michael, I'm starting to get very puzzled by your comments. You don't appear to have read any of the remarks above. For example, you commented on R.E.B.'s talk page that you would have had no idea to look at Mazur swindle for a proof of the theorem. But several people (including me in my nomination) have already pointed out that the valid content is in knot sum/ connected sum, which states that the Mazur swindle gives a proof. It is also stated that knot genus gives a proof, although the details are not included. You commented about the "valid concept" of anti-knot, but I have no idea what this means. There is a theorem that no "anti-knots" exist, but nobody except Cromwell states it that way. The concept of "anti-knot" is about as "valid" a concept as the concept of natural numbers without a prime decomposition. There is, of course, a theorem that every natural number has a prime (even unique) decomposition. Nonetheless I would find it strange that if one author were to state that theorem as "No 'unbreakable' natural numbers, i.e. not having a prime decomposition, exist" , and then people were to start calling "unbreakable natural numbers" a valid concept. --C S (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It has to be a valid concept if there's a theorem saying it can't exist. Certainly the concept of natural number without a prime decomposition is a valid concept. Otherwise there could be no theorem saying no such thing exists. If the concept were not valid, the theorem would have no content. The difference between that and the concept of anti-knot is that the existence of prime factorizations can be stated without introducing a concept such as the one you propose. On the other hand, the theorem saying there is no anti-knot is essentially negative: you can't state it without the concept. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 05:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am the only delete !vote other than the nomination, and I would join a consensus to redirect, probably to a section of Connected sum. Michael Hardy is the only keep argument, and he hasn't actually !voted. Please close. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science Proposed deletions


for occasional archiving