Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory (3rd nomination)

Heim theory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete by WP:POV, WP:RELIABLE/WP:NOTABLE. Seems to be written vainly (NO prejudice or offence - just WP:VANITY?). Maschen (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's initialism gibberish. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by WP:NOTABLE. Waleswatcher (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's initialism gibberish too. It doesn't even make grammatical sense. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is referring to one single wiki policy by its full, linked name without using any acronyms at all "initialism gibberish"? Waleswatcher (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The page linked-to explains. Follow the link and read. That's why it's there. Also, try simply reading your rationale. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nomination was neither properly formatted nor logged in the daily AfD log. It's done, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a notable theory. If it is no longer notable, it would be because of failed predictions — which might also be notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can't say I understand much of the theory, but notability is not temporary. If it was notable, that's enough. The article could undoubtedly be clarified but it appears to be sufficiently referenced for deletion and notability not to be an issue.Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How was this ever a notable theory? As far as I can tell it was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, a basic criterion that is satisfied by hundreds of thousands of scientific articles every year. Why should this have a wiki article, when the vast majority of those peer-reviewed papers don't? As a professional physicist, I get on average 1-2 emails regarding crackpot theories like this one every week. Does wiki need an article for each of those, too? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making a fallacious argument based upon conflating notability and reliability. Notability is a function of how extensively documented something is outwith its creator/inventor/self. Things aren't notable because you get mail about them from their inventors. They haven't been independently documented for starters — something that is clearly explained on the page that you are waving around in the initialism gibberish. They are notable if the world independently and reliably documents them in depth, even if that documentation states them to be complete bilge-water. (In such case, we simply get an encyclopaedia article explaining how the subject is complete bilge-water.) Conveying human knowledge is what an encyclopaedia is about, and that includes human knowledge of crackpot theories, as long as said theories have been independently documented in depth by the world at large. So come back with the crackpot theories that you get mail about when you have independent in-depth documentation of them, from identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Come back, in other words, when you have (for example) the likes of Kelvin F. Long (founder of Project Icarus) writing about them in a book (as is the case for Heim theory — It's on page 295.). Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not "conflating notability and reliability". Reliability (of sources) is one of the basic criteria for notability, see WP:GNG. I don't consider the sources for this article reliable, at least not as sources for a scientific theory (and many of them are comments in internet fora, which aren't reliable for much of anything), nor does the theory have any enduring scientific value. So if we're going to keep it, it will be because it received attention, not because it was ever of any interest as science. That needs to be made very clear in the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You most definitely were erroneously conflating notability and reliability in the questions that you wrote above. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Every question I wrote above pertains precisely the issue of reliability of the sources used for Heim theory. So.... what are you talking about? I repeat - the sources used for Heim theory are plainly not reliable as sources for an article about science. Perhaps they are reliable as sources that attention was paid to this "theory" or to Heim himself at some point - but if that's the sole basis for notability, it needs to be made very clear in the article (assuming it's not deleted). Waleswatcher (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Science theories have science sources, but pseudoscientific theories will have pseudoscientific sources. Do we expect scientific sources about astrology? Apples and oranges, even if we're talking of an orange that wants to be an apple. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a notable pseudo-scientific nonsense theory that has had wide exposure in the popular media. The only issue with this article is that it should be written to make it more explicit that it's pseudo-scientific bullshit. Whether we like it or not, Heim theory does exist out there, and Wikipedia should say something about that... Count Iblis (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable theory with RS. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge or redirect to Burkhard Heim. Heim theory can be properly described as fringe science, junk science, pseudoscience. Evidence for this claim is that it has minimal presence in the science citation indices despite having been around for a long time. However, I have sympathy for the views expressed by Count Iblis above. Normally I have no objection to articles on fringe science being in Wikipedia provided (a) that they are notable (b) They do not pass themselves off as mainstream science. However, the notability here appears to be only marginal. What is worse, to my perception, is the deceitful attempts of the article's proponents to pretend that the subject is, in fact, in the science mainstream. Edits of my own that it is not have been removed. The article, as it stands, deceives readers of Wikipedia by insisting on a greater mainstream significance for the theory than the science community grants. It should not be allowed to stand. The best solution may be to redirect to Burkhard Heim, there is adequate material on the theory there. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and trim It appears to be, essentially, a one man theory. The claims to notability are tied in with the notability of Heim himself, and thus that is the logical place for the content to go, where a greater context can be given. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Do people know of any high quality, independent, secondary sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC
Merge and trim on second thought ... That way everyone should be happy that it gets included in WP. Maschen (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and prune I agree with that too, but it should be more than just a "trim". The gory details are not notable (and I doubt there are any secondary reliable sources for them). Waleswatcher (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heim Theory papers, or better extended heim theory papers are found in nasa ads [1], [2], [3]. Since years heim theory is discussed at American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Joint Propulsion Conferences, e.g.:[4] ,[5], [6], [7], [8]. So it was discussed at Staif and Spesif conferences in the past. there are American Institute of Physics conference proceedings where it can be found, like here& there. Its found in literature like the above mentioned book deep space propulsion and also in the aiaa publication by the former head of the nasa Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, see also [9]. npov rework and please Keep.--Gravitophoton (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is any single one of those peer-reviewed? If not, why do you think they are reliable sources for a supposed scientific theory? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wacky fringe/crackpot theory as it may be, it still is beyond notable as defined by WP:GNG. See also how it comes out in Gbooks: yes, most are UFO books or stuff, but still it's notable meaning it's mentioned and discussed by sources. Notable crackpottery is still notable: astrology, homeopathy etc. are notable for the same reasons. The article should make clear that it is fringe science, and this is a serious issue: but this can be dealt by editing, so it's not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as far as I can tell from what we have, it's not crackpot. [begin OR] Heim apparently didn't know enough of the difference calculus to know that his results couldn't be right. [end OR] I haven't read his (non-peer-reviewed) papers in the orginal German to confirm whether he made serious mistakes in his analysis, although one of our sources seems to note that there are enough parameters in his theory to match his theoretical particle masses to the observed masses. However, some of the papers about his theory seem to have been published in peer-reviewed journals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,I('ve already said that I'm in favor of keeping above). I'm for improving the article to give it more of the perspective from modern physics, which would allow one to say that the theory is considered as a crackpot theory more easily than when you merge it in Burkhard Heim's article. The BLP policy has been expanded so much that it also applies to recently deceased persons; it is then much more difficult to say that what a person has worked for a long time is rubbish without some direct quotes which you won't be able to find. Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already tried "to say that the theory is considered as a crackpot theory" [10] but have been reverted by the crank cabal. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

While I appreciate the spirit of the edit, the edit itself is WP:OR: it's your own deduction from a search engine result. Unfortunately, if the theory is simply not challenged by scientists, then it's the sad situation of proving a negative. Don't know how other equivalent articles solved this, if they did. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absence from citation databases is objective evidence that a topic has been ignored by mainstream science. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. But it's still primary research, WP:OR. After all, lots of papers rest poorly cited but this doesn't mean they're crackpot science. I understand the temptation to ignore all rules is strong, and it makes a lot of sense. But you put yourself on thin ice if you don't have a strong consensus behind you. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What here is primary research? Citation databases are among the most reliable secondary sources it is possible to get. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The number of citations given by a citation database is a primary source for that number, and the deduction of the impact from that number is your own original opinion/deduction on the meaning of that number. It doesn't matter how plausible is the deduction: after all, we also don't allow original theorems here, no matter how rock-solid is their logic and correct their conclusion. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is preposterous to claim that absence from citation databases does not show that a work has made no impact on mainstream science. An exercise in pseudologic in defence of pseudoscience. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I am not defending pseudoscience, please don't accuse me of that: as a scientist myself, I take it a serious attack. What I am saying is just that, on Wikipedia, we have policies that don't let us use that kind of personal research to support a claim. If you want to change that, discuss on WT:OR about it. I've never said that it does not show that. It does, absolutely. But it's not the point. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding it difficult to pin down exactly what point you are making. Do you assert that it is not true that "absence from citation databases shows that a work has made no impact on mainstream science". If so, most mainstream scientists will disagree with you. You may care to review Wikipedia:Scientific consensus Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I must have a mysterious talent in not being able to make myself clear.

"Do you assert that it is not true that "absence from citation databases shows that a work has made no impact on mainstream science". - No, I don't assert that. In fact, I said above I perfectly agree with your point. What you did is logically and conceptually sound. But to link a citation database search to support that assertion is original research. The problem is not the validity of the conclusion -it is valid, and I agree with that. The problem is completely internal to WP policies. Specifically, it's that such a search and the deduction is your own personal conclusion, and as such it is not usable for an article. That's what WP:OR and WP:SYNTH rules against. We need secondary sources to support assertions, not editors' own personal research, even if the deduction is apparently (and even patently) obvious. Look at the examples in WP:SYNTH to understand. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that we agree on the substantive issue - that the mainstream scientific community has not found it to be worth its while to pay any attention to Heim theory. Your notion that the citation databases are primary sources is way outside consensus. The primary sources are the published research papers. The citations to them, which confer notability upon the authors and topics, are the secondary sources. The citation databases, which are compilations of the secondary sources, are tertiary sources. The citation databases have been used for many years as a tool to assess the notability of academic BLPs under WP:Prof#C1 where there is discussion of their use. Common sense and Wikipedia policy coincide. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

No, the citation database is not a tertiary source: it is a collection of many secondary sources. A citation count is a database lookup on this collection, it is the output of a computer program: as such, it is a primary source. Yes, we use it for internal assessment of notability under WP:Prof#C1, but that's only our internal thing. But this is not the point. The point is that regardless of the source of the number of citation, the deduction that it means it had no weight on the community is synthesis. Again, look at the examples there. No matter how sound and obvious the inference can be, it is still original synthesis. It's a reasoning you did on that number, not a reasoning a source did on that number. In other words, it came out of your brain. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research defines tertiary sources as Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources and holds that tertiary sources can be helpful .... in evaluating due weight. The latter policy article contains much of relevance to WP:fringe theories, which we are dealing with here.Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It looks like you're a bit confused. WP:UNDUE has to do with the balance of content within an article, not with existence or less of articles, so it's quite useless here. Besides, this still doesn't change the fact that 1)the output of a software that uses a tertiary source as input is not a tertiary source 2)regardless, writing your own deduction from such output is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly, this theory has received plenty of attention, even after Mr. Heim died. The lack of citations seems to be deliberate secrecy on his part, rather than proof that other scientists disagreed with him. The Steve 22:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why there should have been any secrecy. Heim's work has been publicly available since the early 1980s. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep or merge with author’s article; even if it lacks peer-reviewed citations (pro or con), it seems to have adequate pop- and pseudo-science notability.

I would also like to point out this is the third nomination for deletion (the previous ones were in ’06 & ’07—see the infobox): could someone please rename this page accordingly?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I considered doing it when I first noticed the AfD. Now, though, perhaps we should wait until it closes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubbify and rewrite Although "Heim's theory" (of a different Heim) in linguistics will generate more hits in a google search, this rejected theory of everything deserves a short stub which makes it clear that the theory has not been accepted. At present the article is very poorly written with misleading unwarranted tables and obvious failings even in the lede. Reducing it to a stub with a prominent section on criticisms would solve those problems. A similar failed theory of everything is ECE theory. Mathsci (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above would be a good move too. My objection to the article, which I have expressed several times before, is that its proponents refused to let stand any criticism á la due weight. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, stubify, and rewrite per Mathscis compelling argument above. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tedious comment. Since there has been substantial coverage from multiple independent sources, I think that Heim theory passes the GNG. However, notability is not the only reason we might delete an article. This article does have serious problems. The usual issue with fringe theories which arrive at AfD is that they're fairly low on the notability scale so all the sources are written from the same fringe perspective and few in the mainstream have bothered discussing it, making it very hard to write a neutral article due to the imbalance of sources; this is hardly some article about unicorn-healing or atlantis, but it has a related problem. If we don't delete it, then somebody really has to take an axe to the content; what remains should be reframed from a mainstream perspective. bobrayner (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree the article has serious FRINGE/NPOV problems. But you are asking for cleanup, and AfD is not cleanup: if an article has problems that can be dealt with editing, our deletion policy asks us to edit, not delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pressing the delete button certainly is an effective way of getting rid of problematic fringe/npov content; I think it would be unhelpful to adopt a blanket rule against deleting articles which are full of it. (But in this case, I'm on the fence). bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pressing the delete button certainly is an effective way of getting rid of problematic fringe/npov content" - Yes, it is. But one that our policies and guidelines ask us not to use. If you can solve a problem by editing, this is not a reason to delete, per our deletion policy. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our deletion policy does not quite take such a hard line against deletion; the bulleted list (reasons for deletion) in the first section of Wikipedia:Deletion policy is actually quite broad. Of course, it goes on to say "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" but that is a should rather than a must; and if regular editing has already been tried and failed, that doesn't mean we must always keep on trying it and failing, when there's an easier alternative which is guaranteed to get rid of the problematic content.

The word "Can" covers a surprisingly wide range. Practically all content problems "can", in principle, be fixed by editing rather than deletion, but some problems only need a ten-second edit whilst other problems have persisted for years. One example that springs to mind is an article which has been broken since 2004; it got AfD'd in 2006, where some editors said content should be fixed rather than deleted; the article was kept and none of those editors actually did any fixing; by 2010 the list was in an even worse state, so it was taken to AfD again; more editors said the content should be fixed rather than deleted; none of those editors actually fixed the content; right now we still have the article, it's still a disgrace, nobody has succeeded in fixing it since 2004, but it's undeletable because somebody will always argue that the content "can" be fixed through normal editing. For certain values of "can". In fact, this article on Heim Theory is making its third appearance at AfD, various competent editors have come and gone over the years, help has been requested at ANI (repeatedly) and at the fringe theories noticeboard; if normal editing has persistently failed to solve a problem, I would find it hard to say - with a straight face - that normal editing is a perfect panacea, removing any need to consider deletion. bobrayner (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you feel we have a deadline, but we have none, on Wikipedia. Personally I think it's up to the editors complaining of problems with the article to go fixing them, instead of trying to have it the easy way, getting them deleted, but I understand YMMV. Still, the point is that it can be fixed, not that it has to be fixed here-and-now. This is a collaborative project of volunteers: if an otherwise notable and germane topic can be improved, we should let people the possibility to do that.--Cyclopia ^talk 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misrepresent me. Of course we don't have an absolute deadline; but that is no excuse for leaving crappy content in article-space indefinitely, when we have a tool to hand which can fix it now. Usually, normal editing fixes content problems; but if normal editing has been tried - and failed - repeatedly then there's an easier and more effective alternative. bobrayner (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that in my opinion (and most importantly also according to policies) the fix is worse than the problem. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge or redirect to Burkhard Heim. No reliable sources to be expectable. Kein Einstein (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: This was closed as "no consensus" by a non-admin, but I believe that (1) this is too controversial to be a good candidate for non-admin closure, and (2) since discussion appears to be ongoing, a relist is a better option. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hope the closing admin will be aware of the important policy issue involved in this AfD. This is the balance between mainstream science and fringe science in Wikipedia. In surveying the discussion to date I find that a consensus of a sort has emerged. Most the contributing editors who have a track record of making responsible edits to science articles agree that a) Heim theory falls into the category of fringe science, although it has had some general notability in the past, and b) the present state of the article is unsatisfactory and may be a discredit to Wikipedia. What is not agreed upon is what action to take about it. Suggestions made are delete, redirect, merge or stubbify. I am happy with any of these but have a slight preference for merge as in this particular case it has so far proved impossible to improve the article by editing because of the conduct of its proponents, as explained by user: bobrayner and myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry but I see no policy issue here about the balance between mainstream science and fringe science. Crackpottery, no matter how ridicolous, is no different from other manifestations of human culture, and as such if it is notable crackpottery, it deserves an article. That's it. All what we have to be sure is that we represent it as what it is really, and not as something it wants to be. Now, about Heim theory: It is crackpottery, sure, but it is notable crackpottery, and that's why a stand-alone article makes sense. Now, if the conduct of some editors is making it hard to have a neutral and reasonable article, we have to deal with them, not attempt to remove notable information from the encyclopedia. I'm more than happy to help about that, but this is an entirely different issue. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should have no objection to the stubbify option. I hope you would be prepared to watch the article to see that it does not revert to the fringe bloat of the present version. On the other hand, Heim theory is not among Wikipedia's most important articles, and if it were to be deleted because agreement cannot be reached on how to keep it, there would be minimal loss to Wikipedia because there is already much material about it on Burkhard Heim (which itself suffers from fringe bloat). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

this paper Yoshinari Minami, et al. Field propulsion systems for space travel [11] mentiones extended heim theory as a possible method of a field propulsion system. possible no advanced space propulsion concept of Breakthrough Propulsion Physics is above Technology readiness level 2. We should leave the article, improve it if possible, and wait. --Advanceddeepspacepropeller (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

That's from a symposium. Any "peer review" (or even editorial review) is that the author is "notable" (not even "reliable", by their standards). Nice try, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge, redirect, or stubbify. Anything, really, but the article as it stands is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and the normal editing process has had no success in bringing it into line with Heim Theory's actual relationship to mainstream science. If this article continues to exist, I expect that its final form ought to be a very short description of the theory's brief flash of public attention and a very brief explanation of its many disagreements with actual scientific observations and confirmed theories. Given that, I do question notability overall, since this theory had only a moment's broad attention and that was years ago (and more than it deserves), but others know better than I do what Wikipedia's precise standards for such things is. (At a bare minimum, I'd say that the actual mechanics and "mathematics" of the theory are not notable by any standard: its public attention had nothing to do with how it actually purports to work.) My last real involvement with this article was half a dozen years ago, and at that time it was simply impossible to find enough mainstream scientists to take an interest in this fringe topic to overcome the dedication of Heim Theory's handful of devoted fans. From the look of it, that hasn't changed. (That makes me dubious about the stubbify option, to be honest, but if some admins keep an eye on the article after that it could work out. For that matter, merging or redirecting to the Burkhard Heim article has issues, too, because it is just as minimally notable and fringe-filled. What has worked for other similar topics in the past?)--Steuard (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]