Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 20: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 176: Line 176:


*Since I didn't thoroughly set out my rationale for closing as "delete" I will reproduce the message I posted on Tim Smith's talk page when he asked me to expand: ''Thanks for your comment. I don't think the version of the article affected most of the delete arguments, at least those that I parsed as the most important. I was compelled by a couple of points made by delete voters: (1) the theory is probably not notable outside its connection to a really smart guy, and can be covered completely at the article on him; and (2) this is confirmed by the fact that none of the cites for the article mentioned any other people working on this theory. I agree that it was a difficult decision to make, and I did read the arguments closely and try to watch out for sockpuppets and other very new users. I'm going to stick by my closure, but if you feel that there is more discussion to be had, you might open a discussion at [[WP:DRV|Deletion Review]]. I can also temporarily undelete the article if you feel that one version contains useful information for a merger into [[Christopher Michael Langan]].'' There was a lot of sockpuppetry and skullduggery to dig through in the discussion, and I would not be opposed to a relist, but I fear that it would fall victim to the same problems as this one did. ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])<sup>([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])</sup> 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
*Since I didn't thoroughly set out my rationale for closing as "delete" I will reproduce the message I posted on Tim Smith's talk page when he asked me to expand: ''Thanks for your comment. I don't think the version of the article affected most of the delete arguments, at least those that I parsed as the most important. I was compelled by a couple of points made by delete voters: (1) the theory is probably not notable outside its connection to a really smart guy, and can be covered completely at the article on him; and (2) this is confirmed by the fact that none of the cites for the article mentioned any other people working on this theory. I agree that it was a difficult decision to make, and I did read the arguments closely and try to watch out for sockpuppets and other very new users. I'm going to stick by my closure, but if you feel that there is more discussion to be had, you might open a discussion at [[WP:DRV|Deletion Review]]. I can also temporarily undelete the article if you feel that one version contains useful information for a merger into [[Christopher Michael Langan]].'' There was a lot of sockpuppetry and skullduggery to dig through in the discussion, and I would not be opposed to a relist, but I fear that it would fall victim to the same problems as this one did. ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])<sup>([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])</sup> 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

:'''Comment.''' That the mainstream media coverage which establishes the theory's notability also establishes the notability of its author does not mean they cannot have individual articles. [[Wikipedia:Notability]] says that "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency," and there is no question, in view of the numerous high-profile sources&mdash;''Popular Science'', ''The Times'', ''20/20'', ''Newsday'', ''Esquire'', and more&mdash;in which it appeared, that the theory meets that condition. The CTMU certainly cannot be "covered completely" at the article on Langan as you state, perhaps drawing that conclusion from the version of the article protected at the time, instead of from the comprehensive version which preceded it but which had been so thoroughly eviscerated over the prior few days by users who not only did not understand it, but who reworded it to attribute to Langan positions the ''opposite'' of those he actually holds, that what remained was utterly useless as an aid to understanding the theory. The deletion voters were summoned (see my update above) from a narrow, unrepresentative segment of the Wikipedia community, had been misled into thinking that the theory purported to belong to, or could be classified under, their fields of interest, and applied irrelevant, field-specific notability criteria accordingly. In short, the theory is notable, the AfD was subject to numerous irregularities, the deletion decision contradicted [[Wikipedia:Notability]], and the article should be restored. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


*'''Endorse Deletion'''. Media coverage establishes notability of the ''man,'' but none of the "mainstream publications" discussed the pseudophilosophy in sufficient depth to let it stand on its own. I counted three paragraphs actually focusing upon the CTMU in the ''Popular Science'' article ostensibly devoted to it, for example. (This, combined with the total indifference mainstream science and philosophy have shown to the CTMU suggest to me that nobody else can get any content out of it, either, but that's a different debate.) A single paragraph in the Christopher Langan article would give all the coverage of the CTMU the Wikipedia needs. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion'''. Media coverage establishes notability of the ''man,'' but none of the "mainstream publications" discussed the pseudophilosophy in sufficient depth to let it stand on its own. I counted three paragraphs actually focusing upon the CTMU in the ''Popular Science'' article ostensibly devoted to it, for example. (This, combined with the total indifference mainstream science and philosophy have shown to the CTMU suggest to me that nobody else can get any content out of it, either, but that's a different debate.) A single paragraph in the Christopher Langan article would give all the coverage of the CTMU the Wikipedia needs. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:20, 22 July 2006

< July 19 July 21 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a precis, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)

20 July 2006

Question mark glitches in Pokémon

These articles probably should be deleted, but... How is voting delete and merge "illegal"? "I am discounting the delete and merge votes, which are illegal." --Kunzite 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - strange closure message from our mad russian friend but clearly the general opinion was that it was cruft. Interested editors can expand the articles that this was thought to be merged to - Peripitus (Talk) 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse myself. I don't think the closure is being challenged per se (correct me if I'm wrong). I think Kunzite is using the wrong forum to learn why merge and delete votes violate GFDL. As such, I suggest this DRV be speedily adjourned - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No speedy. I have more to add, but I am pressed for time at this moment. --Kunzite 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A delete and merge in not "illegal" it's just not simple. GFDL does not protect facts, so if someone goes and verifies things independantly, they are free to add material into an article that existed in a deleted article. An argument could be made that, for more complicated material, a list of the contributors copy/pasted onto the talk of the target would satisfy GFDL. - brenneman {L} 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Title

This was deleted a while ago as a flawed hackish way of changing the title. I created a redirect there yesterday to Template:Wrongtitle (I also created one from Template:Badtitle), as it can be hard to remember the right name for the template - and Template:Title is a reasonable name. Now it is protected blank, despite the lack of any comments on the appropriateness of a redirect. It seems obviously useful to me. --SPUI (T - C) 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Endorse -- Has been speedied twice as a G4 recreation of the same redirect that SPUI created. Has been repeatedly deleted since 2004, having various contents. And the one thing that "title" most certainly is not would be "wrongtitle" -- they imply exactly opposite things. --William Allen Simpson 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist List on RFD. The issue of whether it's a good redirect to {{wrongtitle}} was never addressed; it's not a G4, because the content is different (the name of a page is irrelevant to G4, unless a page was deleted solely for having the name in question). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Small addendum: I came here because SPUI brought this discussion to the attention of the IRC channel.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't "relist" something that was never listed in the first place. Bringing this to RFD for procedural reasons is just silly; if someone really thinks it is a harmful redirect, then they may nominate it, but encouraging such foolishness is not a good thing at all.--SB | T 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Procedures exist for a reason. If there's some unusually good reason to circumvent them, or the outcome is obvious from the beginning, then you can ignore them, but in this case neither of those is applicable. Therefore, this should be discussed at the appropriate forum, where people are probably going to be more familiar with discussing the deletion of redirects. There's a reason we have deletion discussions segregated into different places, and there's a reason that the community as a whole decided that deletion without discussion should not apply solely because the page in question happens to share a name with a page that was once deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways or Category:Freeways and motorways

discussion here

The closer seems to have simply counted votes rather than looking at the arguments. Very few people wanted it kept as-is, while most supported Category:Freeways and motorways. --SPUI (T - C) 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did read the discussion. After doing so, I determined there was no consensus. In fact, only by counting votes can one determine that there was a consensus. --Kbdank71 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read m:voting is evil. --SPUI (T - C) 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how many times will we re-re-relist this discussion then? Syrthiss 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus to do away with Category:Limited-access roads and consensus to rename to Category:Freeways and motorways. Trying to get that recognized is not "forum shopping". --SPUI (T - C) 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pass. I've given my reasoning. If you really think I need to read about voting and why it's evil, you haven't understood what I wrote. --Kbdank71 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand fully what you wrote - you counted votes. Therefore you did not close the discussion properly. --SPUI (T - C) 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He reasonably clearly stated that he read the views, and established that there was no consensus. You claim that "most supported", which is voting, which as you say...is evil. Syrthiss 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He said that "only by counting votes can one determine that there was a consensus". This is not the way to determine consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Syrthiss. That is exactly what I meant. I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. SPUI, yes, I said that. I was referring to you, and that if you determined there was a consensus in this case, YOU counted votes. As I said, I read the discussion. This is all I have to say on this issue. --Kbdank71 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never counted the votes; I have looked at the comments and seen that there is a clear consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 20:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of the United States

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party of the United States

Was initially deleted because the party didn't exist back then. It *does* exist now -- http://www.pirate-party.us/ -- and since it's been getting a fair amount of international attention, I'd wager it's notable enough for an article...? —Nightstallion (?) 13:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and keep deleted. The website existed then. Anybody with a couple bucks can create a website. Doesn't constitute notability. Running candidates and getting press coverage would constitute notability. The Pirate Party of Sweden has attracted significant attention, but this article is not about the Swedish party. Can you provide any citations of significant attention to the American offshoot? Fan-1967 13:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too strong in my belief that this article should be restored, I was mainly wondering whether it was notable enough now; significant attraction (in the form of press coverage) I've found would be: Wired, out-law, The Inquirer, DVD-Recordable.org, p2pnet.net, slashdot. —Nightstallion (?) 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the most part, not exactly "non-trivial" reports (they amount to "the Pirate Party is trying to form an American spinoff"), and most of those really don't qualify as reliable sources (p2pnet is not exactly the New York Times). The out-law article is about the French spinoff, not US. Fan-1967 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wired--Slashdot--Inquirer should suffice, no? And see the last line in the outlaw article, it mentions the US one. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the last line in the outlaw article, I cannot see how anyone could describe that as "non-trivial." Can you find any source anywhere that says this party is actually doing anything? Gathering signatures, fielding candidates, gaining followers, organizing? Any activity other than creating a website? Anything besides trying to start up? (And no, I don't think much of either Inquirer or slashdot as sources.) Fan-1967 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that those were the same sources used to prop up the claim of notability the FIRST time this article was put up for deletion, I'm having a hard time understanding the claim that it's gotten MORE "international attention" -- if so, it ought to be easy to do more than recycle the same ones over and over each time some re-creates this article. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated, I was just wondering and didn't have any strong feelings about this either way. I didn't read the whole AFD discussion, but to me it appeared that it was considered non-notable because it didn't get any google hits and had not been mentioned anywhere; if the references I've found have already been discussed in the AFD, feel free to close this. —Nightstallion (?) 08:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - This has made the news, and it would be good to get a wider consensus on if it's presently notable as a minor party in the United States. --Improv 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty much the same "news" as a month ago when this first came up, and it's still not a party, it's a NFST with a logo and a website. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Wikipedia is a resource for those seeking information. Placement in wikipedia isn't an affirmation of importance, and we shouldn't let our own ego go to our head - information. Factual, unbiased. But information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahrin (talk • contribs)
  • Keep deleted for now, expand Pirate party article to mention to extent appropriate. Little evidence that it is notable in its own right, potentially only as an offshoot of the Swedish one, so mention it there. Martinp 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I've seen nothing but handwaving to back up the claim that this is any more noteworthy today than it was a month ago. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, come back when they are on the cover of Time. And I mean Time - it's very tedious when things are brought back to DRV every time a new mention appears on someone's blog. Just zis Guy you know? 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deletedwe're drowning in extra process here. Nothing reversible took place, and per JzG. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ampfea

This page was marked for speedy deletion, basically because the first version of the article was a bit vague, and because the community's web site is currently unavailable due to bandwidth and cost considerations.

After I polished the article (I didn't do the initial version) up a bit, it was deleted nevertheless. I have grave doubts whether anyone actually bothered to read the discussion on the talk page, and I would like to have this page undeleted, so we can actually have a chance to work on it. Creation and deletion happened in a 24-hour period, which is rather short. --SeverityOne 06:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion. SeverityOne, it doesn't look "vague"; it looks like vanispamcruftisment for a site which as you note can't even afford to be in business. Sorry. Herostratus 08:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per above. WP:WEB would apply were this re-created and brought to AfD; I submit that it would not stand a chance. Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own deletion strongly As the deleting admin, allow me to make a point with the article's first sentence: "As a general concept, AMPFEA is a place. It is somewhere, anywhere, you can meet someone with a mutual interest, anyone, who is alive." I don't think I have ever seen a clearer case of an article lacking a clear context than that. The article was quite long, but no text I can imagine could redeem a supposed "encyclopedic" article that started with the above as its opening premise. Xoloz 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the first paragraph; perhaps I should have deleted it as I originally intended to, but I didn't want to delete too much work of the original submitter. But is there at least a way I can retrieve the edits I made yesterday, so I can bring the article up to standards?

And Herostratus, it's a free community site, so what 'business' are you talking about? It's just as commercial as Wikipedia is, meaning that sometimes there is a request for donations, but usually the bill is paid by one or two people. Who are having a spot of trouble doing that at the moment. --SeverityOne 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion: The problem is that Wikipedia won't help spread the word for any cause, whether virtuous or vicious, because that amounts to advertising. The thing has to pass the "notability" bar: it has to be referred to by sources outside of its own context (e.g. a web site would need to be referred to by print or television, a television program would need print or web or radio, a radio show would need print or TV or web, etc.) and be mentioned enough that an explanation is required for the average, educated reader. This fails that bar at present. Geogre 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TMNT Engine

Relist on AfD. This was deleted out of process. I agree with the deletion. I was about to put it up myself, but I don't see how this meets speedy criteria. It seems to have been deleted for lack of content, but it was a stub that had only been created a few minutes earlier and while it probably should be deleted on various other grounds (WP:SOFTWARE, for instance), that requires discussion. Ace of Sevens 03:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first version I saw was a one-liner that included the words "in development". IMO that may well have pushed it over into the speedy category. Recreated version doesn't have that term, and it appears there is a version available for download now. (It's still a homemade game nobody's ever heard of, but an AFD wouldn't hurt.) Fan-1967 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

The article was in a state of edit war for the whole course of this contentious, 93 KB AfD. It was edited over 140 times during the discussion, with huge blocks of text being inserted, deleted, and reverted on less than a moment's notice. The version of the article which was finally deleted bears nearly no resemblance to the one which was originally nominated for deletion. Depending on when users viewed it, they could have seen an article anywhere from 9 KB to 27 KB in size, with anywhere from 7 to 12 sections, 5 to 12 references, and 0 to 42 footnotes.

The particular transitory version viewed makes a crucial difference to many of the justifications. A user calling the subject non-notable with 5 references might have approved it with 12; a user calling the article unverifiable with 0 footnotes might have accepted 42; a user calling the 27 KB version gibberish might have found the 9 KB version to be more intelligible. In such a situation, consensus would have to be very solid to justify deletion, and that's not what I see in the debate. Tim Smith 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It has now come to light that in addition to the irregularities listed above and to the utter chaos in which the deletion debate was conducted, the AfD participants were summoned from a narrow, unrepresentative segment of the Wikipedia community. As background, the CTMU is a not a theory of physics, but of metaphysics (and was listed in Category:Metaphysics from the article's creation in September 2005), and is not empirical science, but philosophy (and that's how Langan has always portrayed it). Yet a link to the AfD was posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Yet_another_AfD, calling upon members of that project to view it, and just hours before the AfD, the nominator linked the article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience and placed it on List of pseudoscientific theories. As a result, the AfD was swarmed with members of a narrow segment of the Wikipedia community whose areas of interest are not directly relevant to the CTMU. Consequently, the proportion of views expressed at the AfD is skewed, and the participants are not a representative cross-section of the community as a whole. Tim Smith 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This very deletion review has now been posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Yet_another_AfD by the original AfD nominator. Tim Smith 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the AfD on various project pages of interest, which is quite in line with the way things are done here; and no-one was asked to "vote" in any particular way. At least I didn't go soliciting votes on other peoples' talk pages, which is somewhat frowned upon, but nonetheless done by Tim Smith. I don't see what the relevance of any of this is: an AfD is not a vote, but a discussion, so it doesn't matter how many people there were saying things (be it delete or keep), it depends on the merits of the argument. And the merits of the argument in the AfD lay on the side of those opting for deleting the article as barely intelligible ramblings about a non-notable topic. Byrgenwulf 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the CTMU is philosophy, the project of interest would have been WikiProject Philosophy; neither the article nor the AfD was ever linked there. Instead, they were linked at WikiProject Physics—when the theory is not physics, but metaphysics, and had long belonged to Category:Metaphysics—and WikiProject Pseudoscience—when the CTMU is not empirical science, but philosophy, and has always been portrayed that way by its author. Additionally, Byrgenwulf added the article to List of pseudoscientific theories, where it does not belong, and only hours later nominated it for deletion. It is evident that many AfD participants were misled by these linkings, as deletion arguments frequently condemned the theory as "pseudophysics" or "pseudoscience". It is reasonable to expect that users with interests in the topics of which the subject actually consists—philosophy and metaphysics—might offer informed judgements about subject-specific notability, but it is not those Wikipedians that Byrgenwulf notified. Instead, a disproportionately large number of users with interests in physics and pseudoscience were summoned to the AfD and misled into thinking that the theory purported to belong to, or could be accurately classified under, those topics. (Incidentally, I haven't called AfD a "vote", or solicited anyone to "vote" in any particular way.) Tim Smith 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure ... I looked at this version in Google cache [1]. The whole reason for the WP:NOR policy is so that we don't have everyone publishing their random physics theory on Wikipedia [2]. Though, presumably, Langan was not himself an author of the WP article, this kind of thing is what the policy was hoping to avoid. We don't need novel theories from every physics guy with a website. At any rate, the consensus to delete was nearly unanimous among non-redlinked users. So I endorse the closure. BigDT 04:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's an old version from before the AfD. Notice that it has 4 references (as opposed to 12) and 0 footnotes (as opposed to 42). The CTMU is philosophy, not physics. Langan is not just a guy with a website; he and the CTMU were profiled in numerous mainstream media sources including Popular Science, The Times, 20/20, Newsday and Esquire (all sourced in the 12-reference version). Those aren't peer-reviewed philosophy journals, of course, but they don't need to be: the goal of the article is not to assert the theory as truth, but to describe it, factually and neutrally. The proposed notability criterion for non-mainstream theories requires reference in only one mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines" like the ones in which the CTMU appeared. WP:NOR is inapplicable here: we're not introducing our own research, but describing the existing work of a notable public figure. In the 42-footnote version, that work was carefully cited (down to the page number) to ensure verifiability. Finally, among users who had edited before the start of the AfD, I count 12 keeps and 19 deletes, a 61% delete ratio. Tim Smith 05:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've temporarily patched up that proposed guideline so that it can deal with cases such as these. It still doesn't mesh well with policy like RS. I might work on this later - it should be much more restrictive, and also consider what different types of references mean for notability - disparaging articles, or articles in questionable popular sources, for example, should not establish notability for an article that covers a theory as serious theory. Time Cube is a great example. It isn't notable as a real theory. It's notable as an internet meme and source of humour.--Philosophus T 19:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I looked at the Popular Science article and it was a biographical blurb about Langan but didn't say much of anything about the CTMU theory. As such, Langan himself might be notable (and a suitable subject for a Wikipedia biography) because of the Popsci piece, but CTMU is still not notable per the WP:RS criteria which require peer review. Phr (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Popular Science focuses specifically on the theory here—not extensively, but prominently enough to pass the proposed notability criterion for non-mainstream theories, which requires only that they be "referenced in at least one major mainstream publication", explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines" like Popular Science. Other coverage (linked in the 12-reference version) focuses on both Langan and the theory, each of which is notable and deserves its own article. The peer-reviewed sources required by WP:RS would be needed to assert the theory. But to describe it, the popular media is sufficient for notability, and Langan's own work is sufficient for verifiability (because we're just reporting what he's saying). Tim Smith 06:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too impressed by that proposed guideline, which proposes to include WP:OR in Wikipedia more or less indiscriminately. PopSci is not much above the National Enquirer in terms of reliability--it's best to stick with actual, peer-reviewed science publications if an article is supposed to be about the "scientific" content of a theory. And the PopSci article really says almost nothing about what CTMU is; it just mentions it by name and vaguely describes what problems CTMU addresses. I looked at the deleted CTMU article (not sure what version) in the Google cache and it's pretty obvious that CTMU is gibberish. Not that Langan is stupid or anything, but another smart guy named St. Thomas Aquinas tried something similar in the 13th(?) century and I don't see evidence of any big advances within CTMU over that. I'd say to put a CTMU summary into Langan's biographical article. Phr (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Again, WP:OR is inapplicable here: we're not introducing our own research, but describing the existing work of a notable public figure. And again, the CTMU is philosophy, not science. The reliability of PopSci would matter if we were asserting the theory. But to describe it, we need to know only that PopSci belongs to the high-profile mainstream media—which it does, with a circulation of 1.45 million subscribers and a readership of more than 7 million. We don't need PopSci to exhaustively cover the theory; Langan's own work can do that. A mere summary in Langan's article would deprive readers who saw the theory in the mainstream media of a valuable resource for understanding it. Finally, please don't be so quick to dismiss the CTMU. It takes a bit of work to understand, but it's not just gibberish or recycled scholasticism. Tim Smith 07:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia doesn't assert the correctness of any theories (WP:NPOV)--it only reports on them. The reporting criterion is WP:RS. If CTMU is a philosophical theory instead of a scientific one, then fine, RS calls for cites to to peer-reviewed philosophy literature instead of scientific literature, but PopSci is neither. Give it a rest. Phr (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia asserts the correctness of numerous theories. For example, the first sentence of Sun ("The Sun is the star at the center of our solar system") is an assertion of the theory of heliocentrism. The introduction to evolution ("Evolution is ultimately the source of the vast diversity of life") asserts the correctness of evolutionary theory. When theories are sufficiently mainstream, we assert them; when they are not, we report them. To report the claims of a notable theory, we need only establish that the theory actually makes those claims; for that purpose, primary sources suffice. Again, PopSci and the rest of the mainstream media coverage establish the CTMU's notability, while Langan's own works establish verifiability for the fact that it makes the claims we attribute to it. Tim Smith 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The AfD was entirely in process. And this deletion review is about process, not content...as can be seen from some of the comments above, the major reason for proposed undeletion seems to be content-based, not process based. I would not oppose a small section on the CTMU (suitable neutrally written in plain English) being included in the bio of its inventor, but I think it is well established by the in-process AfD that the consensus of the Wikipedia community (among those who edit articles not related to the CTMU, anyway) doesn't want it as a separate article. Byrgenwulf 07:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The major reason for undeletion is process-based: the AfD was conducted during an edit war of such magnitude that the article amassed more than 140 edits during the discussion, many of them inserting or deleting entire sections at a time. The version of the article which was finally deleted bears nearly no resemblance to the one which was originally nominated for deletion, and the article's content fluctuated so rapidly that many of the justifications for deletion are valid only in the context of particular transitory versions. The AfD discussion itself was utterly chaotic, filled with one-edit users and IPs, loud accusations of forgery, a large anonymously-added table, personal attacks, irrelevant debates about the validity of the theory, an anonymous user having a conversation with himself, and so on. A mere summary in Langan's article would deprive readers who saw the theory in the mainstream media of a valuable resource for understanding it. Finally, among users who had edited before the start of the AfD, I count a 61% delete ratio of 12 keeps and 19 deletes, a weak consensus in any case and insufficient to justify deletion in view of the exceptional irregularities that bedeviled the process. Tim Smith 07:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I think that the request to undelete has some merit due to the changes in the article during the AFD and the difficulty of judging consensus with so many WP:SPAs in attendance. On the other hand I think the article is complete bunk. Those cancel each other out so I won't endorse deletion or request undeletion. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you mean the Google version linked above, the version that was actually deleted—and which would presumably be restored—bears virtually no resemblance to it. Tim Smith 08:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Closure was in-process,and I also agree with the decision. We have Aetherometry as a precedent. There is no obvious adoption of this theory outside of its proponents - there is clearly insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources on which to base a properly neutral article. Come back when it's been published in Nature. Just zis Guy you know? 08:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nature is a scientific journal; again, the CTMU is philosophy, not science. A neutral article can be written simply by qualifying the theory's claims to the theorist: describing the theory rather than asserting it. If the theory has not been widely adopted, the article can say so. We would need secondary sources to assert or deny the theory's claims, but not to report them; for that purpose Langan's own papers suffice. These are not barriers to neutrality. Tim Smith 09:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point rather. This is a purportedly scientific theory that has not been published in any scientific journal ("proof" is a scientific concept and the statement of the "proof" uses pseudoscientific language). The claim of philosophy appears to be, in the main, a smokescreen to obscure this. Nor has it apparently garnered any significant followers in the philosophical sphere - it appears that its main publisher and proponent is its author. Unlike, say, young-earth creationism, there does not appear to be any significant movement associated with this concept. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The CTMU does not purport to be a scientific theory; indeed, Langan argues that "no general theory of reality can ever be reliably constructed by the standard empirical methods of science." (Langan 2002, p. 12). Proof is a logico-mathematical concept, not a scientific concept, and the CTMU cannot be pseudoscience when it does not present itself as science; again, it's philosophy. Again, notability is established by the theory's numerous high-profile, attention-getting appearances in mainstream media sources like Popular Science, 20/20, The Times, Newsday, and Esquire, with circulations and readerships in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Tim Smith 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. The article is pseudoscience, IMO, but it is notable in the sense that it appears in the media and has a respectable google hit count. There are plenty of other pseudoscience articles (such as astrology or modern Galilean relativity). These articles should all exist with a mainstream critique available and/or a POV tag permanently attached -- this option was not sufficiently covered in the AfD discussion. Sweeping the problem under the rug with a deletion is not a long-term solution to a systemic failure; Wikipedia needs to be a little more inclusive and a little less bigotted. --Michael C. Price talk 09:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not comparable. There are a bazillion published works about astrology that thoroughly document its teachings with mind-numbing specificity, from an enormous number of publishers and authors. A Wikipedia article about astrology that follows those works cannot possibly be considered WP:OR. There are apparently no such publications about CTMU except those self-published by the inventor or his organization (there are mentions of CTMU like the PopSci article, but they don't document CTMU). As such, any WP article about CTMU has to draw heavily on Langon's own writings, which are primary source material, something of a no-no in Wikipedia. (Per WP:RS, Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source which means it in principle only reports on stuff published by secondary sources, and excludes primary source material as being original research). Not sure about Galilean Relativity but there's at least a supposed journal about it and multiple authors working on it over a long period (centuries) of time, and the WP article more or less lumps them together, which isn't so bad. Phr (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The distinction here is between the claims made by a primary source, and the fact that the primary source made those claims. WP:RS explains the difference as follows:

An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.

In other words, if Langan makes a claim in a published paper, we cannot use that paper to verify the claim. But we can use the paper to verify that Langan made the claim. In the 42-footnote version, Langan's claims were carefully cited to his published papers, right down to the page number. Tim Smith 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's certainly verifiable that Langan has this fringe theory (CTMU) and it's fine, per the paragraph you cite, for Wikipedia to report that Langan has this theory, and give a brief description of the theory. The place to do that is in Langan's biographical article, whose presence nobody is contesting. You're pressing for something completely different, which is a large separate article about CTMU. The individual assertions in such an article would have to be documented from secondary sources other than Langan, or else the article documents nothing except "Langan's idiosyncratic explanation of life, the universe, and everything is: ...". That is the epitomy of WP:OR. Phr (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The essence of WP:OR is:

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

A CTMU article would transgress neither of these requirements: we're citing Langan's previously published works, and we're not doing any new analysis or synthesis of his claims to advance a position—just summarizing and reporting them directly. WP:OR is about stopping editors from inserting their own theories or interpretations into articles; that's not an issue here, and primary sources suffice to relay the material. The mainstream media coverage has given prominent, attention-getting placement to the theory, and a mere summary in Langan's article would deprive readers of a valuable resource for understanding what they saw there. Tim Smith 16:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong, you're not citing any of Langan's previously published works that have passed scholarly peer review since those don't exist. And Langan's biographical article has a link to Langan's website. You can put all the CTMU stuff you want on that site, and in fact it's there already. Wikipedia readers capable of clicking a mouse who actually want to see that stuff will be deprived of nothing. What you really want is for Wikipedia to lend undeserved credibility to CTMU by devoting an article to CTMU, and that's precisely what WP:OR is intended to prevent. Anyway I don't have more to say about this DRV so I'm going to attempt to stop replying. Phr (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any article on Wikipedia could be moved to an external site. To do so would be to deprive Wikipedia of the encyclopedic content in which its value resides, and to deprive readers of the infrastructure through which that content is written, maintained, and reviewed for factuality and neutrality. Again, peer-reviewed references would be needed to assert the theory, not to describe it. To assert Langan's claims, the publications in which his papers appeared are not reliable sources. But to assert the fact that he made those claims, they are. Wikipedia editors are not doing original research by reporting previously published claims. Finally, please assume good faith. Tim Smith 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Not notable enough for our tastes. --Improv 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The proposed notability criterion for non-mainstream theories requires reference in only one mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". The CTMU easily passes, having appeared in Popular Science (circulation of 1.45 million subscribers; readership of more than 7 million), Newsday (circulation in the hundreds of thousands), The Times (hundreds of thousands of copies sold daily), on 20/20 (averages millions of viewers per week), and elsewhere (sources in the 12-reference version). It is this level of high-profile exposure which makes the CTMU notable, and which makes an encyclopedia article of use to the many readers introduced to the theory through these sources. Tim Smith 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are (proposed) guidelines to help us make our judgement call. It is fundamentally a judgement call though. --Improv 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I didn't thoroughly set out my rationale for closing as "delete" I will reproduce the message I posted on Tim Smith's talk page when he asked me to expand: Thanks for your comment. I don't think the version of the article affected most of the delete arguments, at least those that I parsed as the most important. I was compelled by a couple of points made by delete voters: (1) the theory is probably not notable outside its connection to a really smart guy, and can be covered completely at the article on him; and (2) this is confirmed by the fact that none of the cites for the article mentioned any other people working on this theory. I agree that it was a difficult decision to make, and I did read the arguments closely and try to watch out for sockpuppets and other very new users. I'm going to stick by my closure, but if you feel that there is more discussion to be had, you might open a discussion at Deletion Review. I can also temporarily undelete the article if you feel that one version contains useful information for a merger into Christopher Michael Langan. There was a lot of sockpuppetry and skullduggery to dig through in the discussion, and I would not be opposed to a relist, but I fear that it would fall victim to the same problems as this one did. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That the mainstream media coverage which establishes the theory's notability also establishes the notability of its author does not mean they cannot have individual articles. Wikipedia:Notability says that "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency," and there is no question, in view of the numerous high-profile sources—Popular Science, The Times, 20/20, Newsday, Esquire, and more—in which it appeared, that the theory meets that condition. The CTMU certainly cannot be "covered completely" at the article on Langan as you state, perhaps drawing that conclusion from the version of the article protected at the time, instead of from the comprehensive version which preceded it but which had been so thoroughly eviscerated over the prior few days by users who not only did not understand it, but who reworded it to attribute to Langan positions the opposite of those he actually holds, that what remained was utterly useless as an aid to understanding the theory. The deletion voters were summoned (see my update above) from a narrow, unrepresentative segment of the Wikipedia community, had been misled into thinking that the theory purported to belong to, or could be classified under, their fields of interest, and applied irrelevant, field-specific notability criteria accordingly. In short, the theory is notable, the AfD was subject to numerous irregularities, the deletion decision contradicted Wikipedia:Notability, and the article should be restored. Tim Smith 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Media coverage establishes notability of the man, but none of the "mainstream publications" discussed the pseudophilosophy in sufficient depth to let it stand on its own. I counted three paragraphs actually focusing upon the CTMU in the Popular Science article ostensibly devoted to it, for example. (This, combined with the total indifference mainstream science and philosophy have shown to the CTMU suggest to me that nobody else can get any content out of it, either, but that's a different debate.) A single paragraph in the Christopher Langan article would give all the coverage of the CTMU the Wikipedia needs. Anville 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The mainstream media coverage is about both the person and the theory, and features the theory prominently. The Times, for example, begins its article with:

Every age has its great thinkers: Plato looked at metaphysics, ethics, and politics; Descartes tried to rebuild human knowledge; Bertrand Russell gave us mathematical logic; from Stephen Hawking came A Brief History of Time. Now there's Chris Langan, the brainy bouncer, with his Cognition-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

20/20 uses the theory as a framing device:

I found arguably the smartest person in America in eastern Long Island. [...] His name is Christopher Langan and he’s working on his masterpiece: a mathematical, philosophical manuscript, with a radical view of the universe.

The Popular Science header says:

He's a working class guy with an IQ that's off the charts. What does he have to say about science? Everything -- a theory of everything, that is.

The caption of the article's photo reads:

Christopher Langan spends his downtime coming up with a solution to a problem that philosophers and scientists have pondered for thousands of years.

So the CTMU has not just been "referenced in at least one major mainstream publication" as the proposed notability guideline for non-mainstream theories requires, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines", but has received prominent, attention-getting placement in many such publications, with circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions. A mere summary in Langan's article would deprive readers who saw the theory in the mainstream media of a valuable resource for understanding it. It deserves its own article. Tim Smith 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of these mention the theory, because it's what the guy has done. Other than giving some indication of its grandiose scope, what do they say about the content of the CTMU? And why would a section entitled "The Cognitive Theoretic ..." in the Langan article be any harder to find via a Google search than a separate article? Anville 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The mainstream media have described the scope and purpose of the theory, noted its more dramatic claims, outlined the structure of its arguments, and proclaimed its potential significance. Of course, that's not an exhaustive treament, but we don't need it to be; it's sufficient that the theory appeared prominently in high-profile sources with circulations, readerships, and viewerships in the hundreds of thousands or millions. The issue is not that a section in the Langan article would be hard to find, but that it would be inadequate as a description, and of no benefit to curious readers seeking to understand the theory they saw so excitedly outlined in the mainstream media. To explain the theory and satisfy those readers, we need not a section, but an article. Tim Smith 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those media stories are all from several years ago. It is unlikely that someone is going to be exposed to the story now and suddenly miss the Wikipedia article about it. The articles, moreover, have titles like "Wise Guy", "Smart Guy", etc., and are about Langan, not his theory. I think your argument is specious, Tim Smith. Why don't you give this a rest, now? You've made your point about the media. Any literate person will be able to see what you're on about, and at the moment you're not introducing any new points. Byrgenwulf 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Again, the articles are about both Langan and his theory, and give the theory prominent placement, easily meeting the proposed notability criterion for non-mainstream theories. Popular Science focuses here specifically on the theory. 20/20 uses the theory as a framing device. The Times introduces Langan and the theory together. Langan and the CTMU are both notable, and both deserve articles.
That readers exposed to the theory several years ago still want an article can be seen by User:Tox's comment in the AfD. Though not a CTMU proponent, he writes:

...I have been aware of it for years (because it is well-known enough that people looking into ToEs, who don't limit themselves merely to academia, eventually encounter it). [...] It is only my steadfast commitment to open-mindedness that does not allow me to reject it until I get around to serious analysis of it. Which is precisely why I'd like to see a Wikipedia article (not written by Langan) on the CTMU: so I have a decent overview of the theory to look at. Anyone else wanting to know about it would find such an article useful, too. So, if the article is flawed, then fix it, don't delete it. This debate is about the philosophy of Wikipedia, not the philosophy of the CTMU.

Tim Smith 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They eventually see Aetherometry, Time Cube, and all manner of other complete nonsense as well. If you look into something for long enough, and don't limit yourself to reputable and reliable sources, you will eventually (even rather quickly) find many things which are not notable. --Philosophus T 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: the decision to delete was not based upon the article itself, but upon the lack of notability of the subject. Changes to the article do not affect the notability of the subject - most people in the discussion were looking for sources elsewhere anyway. If a few references had been found to serious, well known, journals, it might have made a difference, but that didn't happen, because there are no such references, and everyone knew so during the AfD. Note that I do not accept the proposed guideline for fringe science notability - the AfD for this article has illustrated serious flaws in its formulation. Even then, it would be a guideline, not policy. --Philosophus T 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's how Wikipedia:Notability defines notability:

A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact.

Take a look at that first condition: is the CTMU "known outside a narrow interest group or constituency"? Well, let's see.
  • It was described to a circulation of 1.45 million subscribers and a readership of more than 7 million in Popular Science, which focused on it here, saying "You can think of it as the answer to the question of how and why science is able to describe reality".
  • Its scope and claims were announced to millions of viewers on 20/20, which called Langan's book about it "his masterpiece: a mathematical, philosophical manuscript, with a radical view of the universe."
  • In The Times, which sells hundreds of thousands of copies daily and is regarded as Britain's newspaper of record, it was introduced as the latest in a series of achievements by great thinkers like Plato, Descartes, Bertrand Russell, and Stephen Hawking.
  • It was introduced to a circulation of hundreds of thousands of people in Newsday, which called it "revolutionary stuff".
  • It was described to a circulation of more than half a million readers of Esquire, which told them that "Simply put, the CTMU explains the meaning and substance of reality."
  • It was discussed in an online chat moderated by ABCNews.com, one of the most-visited sites on the Web.
  • It was described to a circulation of hundreds of thousands of readers in Muscle & Fitness.
Is the CTMU "known outside a narrow interest group or constituency"? The answer — unquestionably — undeniably — beyond any shadow of a doubt — is Yes. That these sources also featured Langan is evidence only that their readers and viewers know about both Langan and the CTMU, and that consequently both Langan and the CTMU are notable, and that both merit articles. The CTMU certainly cannot be "covered completely" at the article on Langan, as the closing admin believed, perhaps drawing that conclusion from the version of the article protected at the time, instead of from the comprehensive version which preceded it but which had been so thoroughly eviscerated over the prior few days by users who not only did not understand it, but who reworded it to attribute to Langan positions the opposite of those he actually holds, that what remained was utterly useless as an aid to understanding the theory. In short, the theory is notable, the deletion decision contradicted Wikipedia:Notability, and the article should be restored. Tim Smith 02:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The AfD showed a clear consensus for deletion - that's all that really matters, IMO. Tevildo 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Among users who had edited before the start of the AfD, I count a delete ratio of barely above 60%—not at all a clear consensus, especially in view of the exceptional irregularities that bedeviled the process. A huge edit war waged for the whole course of the AfD, the article's content fluctuated so rapidly that entire multi-section blocks were being added and removed in single edits, the version of the article which was actually deleted bears nearly no resemblance to the one which was originally nominated for deletion, and the AfD discussion itself was utterly chaotic and filled with one-edit users and IPs. Under these circumstances, consensus would have to be very solid to justify deletion, and that's not what I see in the debate. Tim Smith 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Philosophus. Also agree with option for a biographic article on Langer which outlines the key points of the theory. Martinp 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - This is a fascinating article on a mesmerizing topic in which many people are quite interested. Langan's theory is definitely out there, embedded in the zeitgeist, and Wikipedia should present it right along with everything else that is a notable part of modern collective culture. In fact, I'm not sure what all the fuss was about. I see no valid reason for deletion. The article was accurate and well-written, and if the truth be told, should never have been nominated for deletion in the first place. DrL 04:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete There is an obvious problem with making "reputable" academic publication the sole notability criterion for ideas which have (probably) not been submitted to a mainstream academic journal because their originators are not academics and are therefore excluded from academia's closed system of credits and rewards (as seems to be the case here). Because the author of the CTMU lacks academic credentials, there was nothing in it for him to publish it in an academic journal; in all likelihood, that would have been nothing but a thankless waste of his time. By what skewed logic do ideas which originate outside of academia, and whose authors were never enfranchised or supported by academia or welcomed into academic circles, require academic recognition or approval? Using this catch-22 as a standard of notability for the CTMU is perverse and Kafkaesque. Nobody who believes in free intellectual commerce could possibly endorse the dangerous, herd-minded absurdity of granting a single bureaucratic establishment, academia, the sole power to determine the degree of merit of any theory or idea, particularly by merely ignoring it. Surely our powers of reasoning are not so weak that we can't see this. Asmodeus 05:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this user has 44 edits, of which 33 have been devoted to discussing this deletion on the AFD and DRV pages. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Either my arguments stand on their own, or they do not. If they do not appear to stand alone, then I suggest that the reader ignore my signature and suppose, just for the sake of neutrality, that they are anonymous. If, on the other hand, the above comment is meant to establish pecking order in the Wikipedia hierarchy, then it seems natural to ask the following question: what does pecking order in the Wikipedia hierarchy have to do with the thrust of arguments for/against deletion? If it wouldn't be too much to ask, please address the arguments themselves. Asmodeus 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean no ill will, but often edit patterns such as these indicate a sock puppet set up to inflate "vote" tallies. Although you are correct that this should be about the substance of the arguments, many admins (especially here in DRV) close discussions based on solely a tally... (ESkog)(Talk) 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No offense taken. For what it's worth, I hereby duly inform you that I'm not a "sock puppet". There is another person on a separate computer at this node, and possibly more given that it's a crowded node. As I understand it, that's not a crime. After all, my opinion is worth no less simply because I occupy a shared node. Basically, the "sock puppet" rule simply says that at any given time, there should be no more handles involved in a discussion than there are actual participants, and that is definitely true on this end. On the other hand, you may be making an accusation, in which case it would be rather disingenuous of you to deny any ill will (given that you would have no proof of your accusation). In any case, this discussion is about substantive issues pertaining to the AfD. Please feel free to address those issues at any time. Asmodeus
  • Endorse closure'. Specific comment to DrL and [User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]]. If this is to be considered a revote, rather than a question of whether the AfD was properly closed: If a scientific (or metascientific) theory is notable, it will be commented on by academics, even to the extent of saying "this is nonsense". But that's not the primary argument for deletion. IMHO, the primary argument for deletion is that — disregarding the Popular Science article as an adjunct to the article on the author — there are no non-self-published sources. (Disclaimer: I "voted" Delete and urged the closing admin to find Delete in the AfD.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Academics cannot comment on that of which they are totally ignorant, and in this case, the reason for their ignorance is that as a matter of policy, the academic community reserves attention for only its own work, published in its own "reputable" academic journals. In other words, academia is a closed shop and thus does not qualify as an arbiter of notability for works by non-academics. Langan is not an academic; therefore, questions of merit aside, his work has naturally not come to the attention of academia. Regarding self-publication, I'm afraid I don't quite understand your comment. Esquire, Popular Science, ABC, the BBC...the CTMU was mentioned or described by all of them, and they are all at the very top of the media food chain. Only a tiny handful of theories, academic and otherwise, has ever been deemed sufficiently notable for this sort of coverage, and in no way are these eminent sources "self-published" by Langan. So if self-publication was indeed the primary argument for deletion as you suggest, then it's really very simple after all: the article should be undeleted. Asmodeus 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Ever hear Carl Sagan speak about astrology? And what about the countless biologists who have gone out of their way to debunk creationism? The claim that academics only pay attention to the insides of academia is a naïve caricature, nothing more. Anville 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Occasionally, academia finds an external, politically salient cause celebre which it perceives as socially detrimental and therefore opposes in unison, as it is currently arrayed against Creationism. Historically, these are rare occurrences (despite more frequent exceptions confined to the social and political sciences). The CTMU, which is neither political in thrust nor perceived as socially destructive, is clearly not one of these rare instances. Therefore, your example fails to apply. If one cannot understand this, the most likely reason is that one has somehow managed to confuse the CTMU with Creationism. However, one person's confusion is not grounds for deletion.
As I seem to recall, the late Carl Sagan's comments on astrology were confined to the popular media, and astrologers were neither welcome nor permitted to reply to them in academic journals. That is, like astrology itself, these comments were not regarded as notable by academic standards. Since neither the criticism nor the rebuttal (such as it may have been) appeared in academic journals, academia has remained a "closed shop" with respect to them. Exiting the ivory tower to make off-the-clock remarks is one thing; entering and permitting the rebuttal of those remarks in academic journals is quite another. Asmodeus 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette's Guy

This article has been reviewed and nailed down as non-notable twice now with total votes at 14 nn 2 n. The problem I'm seeing is that the site www.tourettesguy.com has been the only source sought in determining the notability of the PERSON 'Tourette's Guy.' The site itself certainly does not have the notability the person does- and it is easily fair game to call him an internet phenomenon. Reliable proof will follow. Quick searches of the largest humor and even non-humor video archives reveal that Tourette's Guy is very popular and even has a cult following. Here are some of the resources I've found:

I would like to quote Wikipedia's Notability (memes) page:

Google doesn't establish notability: A Google test cannot be used to establish that a meme is notable because it is theoretically possible that issues such as Google bombing have inflated the count. However, Google can show non-notability for Internet memes. A very small Google count can show that a meme is non-notable.

Google returns over half a million results on 'Tourette's Guy'. Let's compare to some current entries in Wikipedia's current list of Internet phenomenon

I only bothered showing four because I don't really have the time to show more- but really all it would take would be one of these to prove that these entries are at least LESS notable than Tourette's Guy according to the statement above about small Google results. So to recap:

  • 1) TG IS NOTABLE as shown by the enormous amount of saturation his videos have made into the online video community
  • 2) TG IS NOT NON-NOTABLE as shown by the absence of lackluster Google results.

I nominate Tourette's Guy (The person not the website) to undeletion. Thank you. Whetstone 06:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted due to the lack of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, nn viral marketing per Stifle. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Tourette's Guy actually generates 292 unique Google hits, not half a million as the nominator claims. [3] --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This will be entirely forgotten within 2 years. Not notable. --Improv 13:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Improv, Samuel Blanning and Stifle. 1ne 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as above. I long for the day when people realise that "I heard it on teh intarwebs" does not amount to a hill of beans. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If TG is only notable withing the "online video community", then that is too transitory to belong in an encyclopedia. No process grounds to overturn the AFD result. Martinp 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_20&oldid=65148494"