Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:16, 1 January 2007

Electric universe (concept)

Two years ago, this article was nominated for deletion, and no consensus was reached. The community has given enough time for supporters of keeping the article to make their additions and referencing to keep the article, but it is now more clear than ever that this article should be deleted on grounds of original research, non-notability, and it being impossible to reach standards required of verifiability and reliability. As another editor stated: "EU seems to be notable primarily in the minds of the advocates, and scientifically it is less notable than the sum of its parts."[1] Any information contained in the article that is relevant to uncontroversial science (e.g. descriptions of plasma, z-pinches, or electric discharge) is already present at the relevant articles. Here are the reasons for deletion of the rest of the content:

The article is written mostly by supporters and advocates of the concept which is a definite conflict of interest
There are only two people who currently publish ideas of the "electric universe" and both of those people (Scott and Thornhill) publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. Despite being ostensibly "scientific" the concept has received no peer review. This makes their ideas original research.
The article includes very misleading original research amalgamations of various citations gleaned from mainstream sources in attempt to pass a veneer of respectability for the subject. This original research amalgamation includes using as "sources" papers written by Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven and descriptive links to NASA press releases. However, neither of these sources was/is aware let alone actually supported/supports the ideas of Thornhill and Scott.
Contributors who support and advocate EU have falsely claimed that this subject has been subject to peer review research. In fact, every IEEE transaction paper the contributor listed to show evidence of "notability" is not about "electric universe" but rather about plasma cosmology (a different idea). Just recently, this charge was reinvorgated with the false claim that will be subject to a future peer-reviewed publication. This assertion also is in reference to plasma cosmology. As such the "electric universe" has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.
For a fringe idea like this to be included in Wikipedia it has to have some recognition from the mainstream whether it be internet memes, the media, the scientific community, etc. In fact, there has been absolutely no verifiable nor reliable independent review of this idea since it is not notable. There is only one single piece of press that this idea ever received, and this piece of press is neither a notable nor a directly relevant example. The press was a single, non-notable article in Wired Magazine about an exchange on internet message boards between proponents of this idea and amateur space enthusiasts, obviously reporting of this sort violates Wikipedia's internet verifiability rules and reliability concerns. As such the subject fully and completely defies notability in the "media recognition" category as well.
As stated by another editor: "As it is, the article has an alarming tendency to grow into a mat of poorly-connected references into holoscience.com and thunderbolts.info, and normal editing is impossible."

--ScienceApologist 13:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Delete as per nom. Chrisch 13:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with reservations too minor to debate here. Metamagician3000 13:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Mike Peel 13:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot say more than what the nominator has said. Dr. Submillimeter 14:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 13:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
-===Comment===
-:I think I'd better correct some of the misleading statements above. This is actually the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Electric_Universe_model '''third''' attempt to delete the article]:
-:*1. To suggest there is a conflict of interest, is to suggest the same when ScienceApologist, a proponent of mainstream theories, edits mainstream articles. This has nothing to do with the notability of the article, but another desperate attempt to smear certain editors.
-:*2a. There are more than two people who publish articles on the Electric Universe. This is easy to show on the Thunderbolts Web site, which describes itself as "Exploring the Electric Universe"[http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm], and which includes a list of Web site contributors,[http://www.thunderbolts.info/team.htm] (8 people), plus other contributors such as C.J. Ransom, Don Scott, and Rens van der Sluijs).
-::*'''Comment''' -- none of those contributors rises to the level of [[Wikipedia: Notability (people)|notability]], and since they are all only contributing through the publications of Scott and Thornhill, we have only the attribution of those two fellows to go on. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 15:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
-:*2b. Articles on the Electric Universe have appeared in the journal [http://www.kronos-press.com/ Kronos], SIS C&C Review, [http://www.aeonjournal.com/ Aeon]. There is also Don Scott's book, [http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ Electric Sky], and Wal Thornhill and David Talbott's forthcoming book, "The Electric Universe".
-::*'''Comment''' -- As was said above, these are published in vanity presses.
-:*2c. [[WP:OR|Original research]] refers to information that is not verifiable (ie. a Wiki editor's only ideas). ScienceApologist should know this.
-:*2d. Aspects of the Electric Universe have indeed been peer reviewed. The importance of cosmic electricity, appears for example, in Alfvén's "Electric currents in cosmic plasmas"[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1977RvGSP..15..271A&amp;db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4521318e0207026], and Peratt's "The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma"[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1990ITPS...18...26P&amp;db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4521318e0207263], and Ip's "The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails"[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1976Icar...29..147I&amp;db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4521318e0207462]. ScienceApologist seeks to distance the Electric Universe from these peer reviewed sources, in order to demonstrate that the subject is baseless.
-::*'''Comment''' -- Again, this is an example of incorrectly attributing sources for EU that are actually to other ideas. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 15:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
-:*3. This is ScienceApologist's personal point of view, and is baseless.
-:*4. ScienceApologist sees subjects like the Electric Universe and the Plasma Universe, as mutually exclusive. this view is baseless.
-:*5. Recognition from the mainstream is not a requirement for notability. What ScienceApologist means is that he '''personally''' does not consider the subject notable, and he's entitled to that view. --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 [[Category:AfD debates (Science and technology)]]