Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantonics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Quantonics

Quantonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I found zero third party sources. A quick google search does give the website but also a company, by the same name, that makes crystalline materials. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Has no significant coverage, one reliable source (which is a first party), no proper third part sources (except a few forums), and fails "Independent of the subject". Note: This was csd for promotion before but I don't think it is justified so I'm taking it to afd now. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Gillyweed (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Don't Delete Thank you for at least hearing this out. Please allow say no more than 24-48 hrs for a supporting case to be made, as I need to sort of read over some of the policies and guidelines you guys might be more familiar with. Anyway I did find this to start at Third-party sources: "An article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance." I need to verify that this subjects apparent 'insularity' if you can call it that (ie the lack of immediately available/googlable sources to cut an paste) does not diminish notability if notability can be established on other grounds. It just means the article might require more work to fully adhere to policy. I just think a day or two to sort of legitimately come up with that notability is fair considering A) the theory system is highly developed, B) my familiarity with subject while remaining neutral/unbiased would allow timely preparation of the article, and ultimately I feel if the subject is found to be notable, and the article can be well-sourced, neutrally prepared and not unambiguously promotional, it will serve the users and the Wikipedia community well to include the presence of this subject. Right now the approach I am taking to verifying notability is that Quantonics seems a prime, leading, major etc. if not *only* or *first* (how does Wikipedia treat those?) example of a certain type of theoretical construct or belief system- ie it creates its own genre (as we all know happens all the time in music when new instruments or technologies are incorporated into pre-existing forms). In notability guidelines it says just because it is barely known, not famous, or not popular doesn't make it unnotable. And, it is likely on first impression as I have familiarity with the subject, for example the introduction page that is linked, I am familiar with the terms etc. So, might Quantonics be notable as the leading or dominant example of that class of 'belief systems' or 'thought systems', whatever it might be called, say 'post-quantum' post-binary' theory? Not to mention honestly in my informed opinion, it uniquely fuses two modes of ideational advancement: technical scientific rigidity and creative artistic, aesthetic expression. Two things that usually don't fuse almost like when Aerosmith and Run-DMC got together in a way. It's too strange to treat as one or the other, so the baby goes out with the water? Don't delete. Perhaps his type of human endeavor is a bleeding-edge category of human endeavor entirely, called "Creative Logic" or something? Which could indeed be a ubiquitous area of research in 100 years making everything before it obsolete. If you know Quantonics, it itself supports this position. I only intend to be contentious in a constructive way about this but I do have opinions as evidenced by this lengthy comment. But yeah lack of third party is tough here. I don't know that it justifies restriction of this subject. Thanks again. --Phaedrx (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

First, deletion deletion discussions go on until a consensus of keep or delete is reached. If the discussion goes on long enough (usually a 1-2 weeks) and the closing admin feels there's no consensus for keep or delete the discussion will close and at no consensus. Back to your points, you feeling this is notable doesn't make it notable. Wikipedia has rule on Wikipedia:No Original Research. Only if third party sources deem the subject to be notable then wikipedia will have an article on it. However, you are right that not finding google sources doesn't mean there's not a lack of sources, but the article needs to have third party sources or it won't survive an afd. It can be a textbook, newspaper, journal paper, etc. Google if very good and finding journals and textbooks (at least if there's a pdf version). These all come up empty. Lastly, popular and notable are too different things. Popular refers to the general public knows of it. That does not need to be the case. They are many articles (mostly scientific articles) that achieve notability because there is journal articles on it. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

first of all this hasn't been brought up but I wanted to say I looked at Profringe, and Quantonics is probably not fringe at all, but rather what is in Wiki guidelines as "an alternative theoretical formulation", since Renselle is indeed tweaking the frontier, addressing mainstream theories throughout his own, and attempting to explain or dealing with strong puzzling evidence, i.e. observable quantum-physical manifestations: "To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality." and again from the guidelines:"..4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are *not* (my emphasis) pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, *will usually be rapidly accepted*. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics." I never stated my own opinion about this subject's notability. With all due respect I think you skipped over the word 'if' up there in my last comment because if you take out the if it looks like I'm saying how great I think the theory is. No. That is not important, I know. I know all of us together will figure this out either way. I meant that I am looking into it and "my feeling is, that *if* it is found to be notable (i.e. by all of us) then..." etc. That's what I meant. But remember if the support is a tiny minority, "Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable." Notability would unquestionably be established if one single third-party treats the subject in-depth on a website- reviews, summarizes and criticizes it, and then citing that gives you a third-party right there. So I might actually do that fairly, and so make myself a source, but I don't think that's entirely the best way either. Here is the best position, again, I feel: The guy is operating in a totally different, brand new mode and is the only or leading proponent or example of that new 'Rensellian' mode or style of theoretical formulation; (I am not suggesting my naming of said mode here be adopted) He is blending two previous genres if you will, the advancement of scientific knowledge through an in-depth well-developed system of expression uniquely created to address the thousand questions quantum physicists have about the things they see in labs, like recently they made the temperature go below absolute zero. People like Renselle simply develop belief/thought systems like Quantonics precisely as an alternative to other ones that are ever falling short. Newton bumped Copernicus, Einstein him, Bohr and Bohm all of the previously mentioned etc. etc. Renselle is in the quantonic state of 'maybe it will cause a Kuhnian Scientific Revolution or paradigm shift, maybe not. We cannot tell yet. Consider if some cavemen saw gold or a group of explorers physically saw the fountain of youth in front of them and dismissed its notability out of confusion of what it was they were seeing. Renselle's Quantonics has not been rejected because it hasn't ever even been considered. The guy just posted it; consider us Wikipedians the cavemen or explorers, with Doug's theory being the 'gold' or 'fountain of youth' in the scenario. --phaedrx (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There is very little science on this website, it seems to be a smokescreen of silly words by someone who does not understand quantum mechanics in attempt to impress others who don't understand the subject. Einstein did not "bump" Newton, he built upon Newton's work, in the same way as Newton built upon the work of Copernicus, this is just an attempt to throw the lot out the window. wrt "the recently temperature go below absolute zero.", you cannot make temperatures go below absolute zero, there exist negative temperatures, but that is a scientific construct, not below absolute zero. And "recently", well these first postulated in the 1950's are seen experimentally at least 20 years ago.Martin451 (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be think that the problem with this article is to do with the size of minority that supports the idea. That's not how it works. It makes absolutely no difference how many people support the idea, what matters is that the idea itself is known and recognised. Notability can be demonstrated only by reliable sources discussing it (regardless of whether they support it or not). There is no evidence that any do, and no amount of quibbling over how it should be defined, and what it is, will change that basic failure. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 08:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I would prefer waiting a couple of years or more until at least this theory has been proved and accepted under consensus by a number of reliable sources aside from the self-published ones. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Delete One persons pet theory does not a wikipedia article make, he claims to have "invalidated general relativity", he seems to treat this subject as a religion, and is inventing his own language. This is nothing more than a fringe theory without third party sources to establish notability.Martin451 (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete More fringe babble with no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC).
• Delete I can't really see what this has to do with quantum mechanics - or much else either. (Possibly Theosophy, with which it appears to share a fondness for esoteric incomprehensibility...) However, we do have articles on things that don't comply with orthodox science (homeopathy, for one...). Those are widely documented. Other than on its own site and spin-offs and publicity pushes, this doesn't seem to be. Peridon (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Blatant promotional of the author's belief system; I have read a bit of his website, but it all reads like meaningless, stream-of-consciousness babble (not even scientific-sounding). If an article starts with "Quantonics is an advanced and highly developed thought system", it starts wrong. Strong (possibly speedy) delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think the individual(s) defending the article are familiar with WP:N. I did find one 3rd party refs, though, which is the only way to show notability (1 primary source does not an article make). [1]. Unfortunately, not enough to warrant an article on WP. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404... Peridon (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the link. apparently, I was triggering some wierd macro. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

For real fixed it this time. Seriously, that was wierd. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I've bookmarked it for further attention when I come off these anti-inflamatories and can laugh safely... Peridon (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Individual's pet theory on their own website. Not notable, at all. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• 2nd/final reiteration of my Keep vote. Thanks guys. Yes, I obviously feel Quantonics is Wikiworthy and I am perfectly in the right to say so. And I remain anti-snowball and pro-Wikipedia, but not one person so far has actually addressed my main or follow up points post-speedy. I actually did carefully review WP:N and other guidelines for hours over days, despite above insinuation. I came to these 2 conclusions: All I was saying, was
  
  a) A serious neutral analysis of the merits of Quantonics on my own independent site would have to, as currently worded in the guidelines, generate the required notability. And this neutral treatment would neither flippantly declare its 'petness' by writ without any supporting statements; nor gush that this man is infallible and his work sacred (which is what the grotesque caricature of the 'don't' position apparently tends to in the extreme); rather somewhere in between, somewhere *neutral* was my honest intent here.
  And lastly, I wasn't looking to trifle with an online resource obviously valuable to millions worldwide so, b) I thought it better to defer to another perhaps less fishy way to 'get it in' namely that this is a Prime or Only Example of A New Mode or Style of ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL FORMULATION (taken right from the guidelines!) Someone care to differ? Please.
  
  I still hold to the following logic: if someone writes and records a song in their house, that's not enough. fine. And if that record (which could be amazing or it could be terrible) if it's only found within a first-party webpage, still short. Of course, BUT, if the record is some kind of new thing, say reggae-metal, then consider the following: He has potentially invented a new style/mode of addressing the absolute forefrontier of quantumness mainstream can only partly explain and control. Or, easier to concur with still, that if he's doing this type of activity, he belongs in an article expounding on 'eccentrics novelly complementing mainstream science's shortcomings with a creative alternative approach'. BTW for the below absolute zero thing, please see for example the article http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/01/temperature-below-absolute-zero. Reliable, verifiable etc. "Physicists at the Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich and the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching have now created an atomic gas in the laboratory that nonetheless *has negative Kelvin values*." And to me Jan '13 is indeed quite recent. Look, this is getting surreal and bizarre. If you want to pick apart the argument I am making please by all means do so. You all seem to need so badly to uphold the integrity of this work (WP) out of principle or ideology or maybe even automatonic habit by this point for some WP vets sadly to say. My vote was cast, I was seriously looking to enhance incrementally the value of WP with a neutral point of entry for seekers who probably could determine *for themselves* (and not be told by the likes of us) that, hey, Quantonics is crap. You all are simply going to Doug's site, evaluating and rejecting the subject's substance and not addressing its WP-defined notability, its actual real-world notability (two diff. things) which led me to it personally, and will continue to lead other seekers too. Nor does anyone's above 'Delete' really get into any other standard in the official WP. guidelines. Thanks. --phaedrx (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC) ps - Mr. Rosoft, please google 'advanced definiton' and see #2 'New and not yet generally accepted.' It is indeed advanced then, precisely by the resistance here and its universal disregard. And as to quantify its developed-ness as 'highly' so, I was simply referring to how much time and effort was obviously and evidently spent on devleoping so much content even if it is crap as you say. Otherwise I would have said 'well'-developed. But that was me trying to be neutral. So take the safe route, read 1% of the site for 5 minutes, find yourself confused as I first did, but stop there and come back here and dismiss it however you like. But is there not one other single brave soul willing to surmise at all as to how Quantonics might possibly be deemed a Wikiworthy page.. even if you ARE against? Wow that's telling. Reveals latent flaws in the process. Sorry but true. Thanks again to all to take their time and put their best efforts in on this subject which I personally have always gained Relevant ('what does Quantonics have to do with anything') Positive Awareness ('Quantonics is crap') of my surroundings from that site unlike others, whenever I went there. Knock yourselves out guys it's been real.

For notability to be achieved, Wikipedia needs multiple third party reliable sources e.g. mention by press or scientific journals. One website plus one independent review does not count. A large following on the internet would be notable if covered by independent reviews of that following. The Quantonics website does not achieve that notability no matter whether it is "crap" or not. Have you every watched Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?, the bit at the end where he goes into the room and there are hundreds of cups containing poison, and one is the Holy Grail, well that is what fringe theories are except there are many many thousands of bad cups for every good cup, and wikipedia is not designed for all this dross.

Re: negative temperatures see publications like Olli et al like I said, this was published 19 years ago in a scientific journal, not this year. From the article you cite above “Yet the gas is not colder than zero kelvin, but hotter,”, also like I said, the temperatures don't go below absolute zero, they are negative as a scientific way to describe them. It seems that the author of Quantonics is just grabbing stuff from the popular press without researching or understanding the actual subject.

From another part of the website "In order to say and believe that Bentov must assume that his pendulum's reference frame is motionless. Physicists would say Bentov's pendulum's reference frame has "zero momentum." But does it? Really? No! On Earth, his reference frame is moving around Earth's axis at a maximum of 500 meters per second at Earth's equator. Too, Earth moves around its solar orbit at about 30 kilometers per second!"

The author displays a complete lack of understanding of the concepts surrounding relativity, yet at another point of his website claims to have invalidation both special relativity and general relativity. He does not provide any mathematical/scientific proof of this, just declares that he knows better. How can you invalidate something that you clearly do not understand? This whole website is just whishy washy words to cover up a fraud who is clueless on physics, the subject he is claiming to know about. Martin451 (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The main question we must address is not "Is this a valid theory" - if this was a major criterion, then homeopathy and Flat Earthism would be out of the window. What we need to know is, is it notable? They are notable despite being a load of cobblers. If theories had to be proved, all religions would be out too. This theory does not appear to be covered in the depth we require anywhere except on the home site. That cannot count for notability. I could in an hour or so set up a site for Fragantism. a new religion and theory of why strawberries are the key to the universe. I could get pages on Facebook and MySpace, and link to it on 4chan and the Volvo owners' forum. But it would count here as (at best) Original Research WP:OR, or (more likely) be deleted straight off as a blatant hoax. Your theory is not discussed in depth at any reliable independent source, as mine wouldn't be. See what I'm getting at? The comments here about the theory itself are explanations of WHY we can't find anything (and presumably you can't, either...). It's the lack of anything that's the reason for the article being at AfD. Wikipedia does not cover new research - not until it's been dealt with reliably and independently elsewhere. Someone may invent a machine for making bread out of stones. Until Science or at least Modern Grocer has reviewed it, we ignore it. Magazines like Science have peer review before publishing. We don't - this is why we insist that things are already reviewed independently elsewhere first. Peridon (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I found one very interesting reliable third-party source on the Quantonics website, surprisingly enough. Dr. Scott C. Smith, a Professor at LaSalle University, has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics and does research on Computational Astrophysics and Relativity . He wrote to Quantonics, complaining that one of his letters had been republished without permission. Dr. Smith refers to Quantonics as "deconstructionist nonsense." He also stated about creator Doug Renselle, "I feel he has failed to truly grasp the basic concepts of quantum mechanics." . This confirms my impression that Quantonics is a personal theory with neither notability nor credibility, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. HillbillyGoat (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. The relevant policy is WP:No original research, and the key sentence in that is: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So let's close this out huh, well at least I was in the right, as far as trying to start a new page, and stating all that above which was how I honestly felt. Didn't mean to snowball or tie up your guys' resources on a bogus article or anything. At least it was practice for me. Of course I respect the delete decision as I have said since joining Wikipedia here. I respect this great encyclopedia I read it all the time. Anyway, again, I am very new here so am I supposed to AFD this? -Phaedrx (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This IS AfD... You can strike through your Keep (put <s> at the start of the word and </s> after it. Then you can can request deletion as author. Otherwise, things last a week from the start. If you do make the request, an uninvolved admin will probably delete sooner per WP:SNOW and per your request. If you do this, I'll contact one to make a quick close. If you want to let it run on, that's OK. Someone might come up with references... When making your next article, get the references in hand first, and write round them. Then, you can fill in other bits. It may be cheating, but it works. Peridon (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your setting up was quite good - do try another subject (using my tip above, and making sure of notability first, of course). We do need people who can create content. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm fast learnin to shut my mouth more because I have to revalidate everything unclear which includes the stuff you didn't intend. I guess that's every single romantic comedy crisis point ever. Well, phaedrx's quantonics is like edselian but that's my exaggerating it now. It's just a non-encyclopedic virtually unsourceable subject at the moment. I feel better. Thanks to all, as far as the shut my mouth comment I just meant by the way when I was accidentally sockpuppeting my airtight alibi is this: I was in the habit of customizing the appearance of my desktop when I was using this ref as a invaluable tool at work. But never once in my wildest dreams or in any of the more boring ones actually did I ever think when I signed into the Wikipedia I would be doing anything special like editing. I consider this activity a special thing by the way making Wikipedia happen is a real thing, anyway, when I started 'socking' or whatever I was used to making new accounts variations of my name etc, but eventually I just made up new ones quick so I could get in and do what I neede to do in the interest of time at my job. So I forgot all this when I was being attacked by multiple people about multiple things that spun this newbs head. So, the delay ended when I just realized now that I was doing that, signing in to make the screen look how I wanted. Does that also show up in the history?? Does my browsing pages publically affect or effect shanges in my standing in the wikipedia community I have a zillion questions. --Phaedrx (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a load of uncited stuff about an obscure guy's thoughts. No evidence is presented in the article for anything. The version I saw had quite a bit of purple prose (which I have deleted). Apparently the guy used words and symbols - guess what - so does everyone. If the president of the country north of Mexico was coming out with this stuff, it would merit an article - not because it has any validity, but because of who was coming out with it. I have no idea whether the Doug Renselle mentioned in the article is the same guy that Google says is a computer hacker. If he is the same person, it is not much of a claim to notability.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. I know now that, as a contributor here, I am certainly at my leisure to, on my own time, draft up a new article on this same subject should I choose, and properly post it up here for discussion etc. legitimately. That page should it ever happen would definitely have a better chance of surviving AfD than this one. My lack of desire to snowball on this version of a Quantonics entry in the Wikipedia has already been made known a long time ago (see above). This Quantonics page may look like a freshly entered AfD no-brainer to some wiki-vets, but to me as a not-so-newb-anymore newb, it feels like ancient history. Meaning I didn't even know how to do a cite web ref. from memory etc. yet, every time I wanted to cite I had to look up guidelines and templates, etc. hence its fatal uncited-ness. That, and there are like no google hits as was mentioned by Toddy. So, while I still hold the opinion that the subject as presented is indefensible, I also think if it would be done right that there could one day be an article on Quantonics. Now that I know more about Wikipedia (I made this Quantonics page after only a few days of reading the guidelines and before I even knew there was a wikipedia-en-help connect thingy) right now there are other ways I feel are more important for me to contribute here with the time effort and ability I do have than this admittedly obscure knowledge or thought-system. --Phaedrx (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC) ps at Toddy's request I have changed all instances of the other IP username I accidentally used (see user:Yngvadottir who first pointed this out to me) to the current username. That IP has been listed on the phaedrx user page since Yngvadottir told me about the socking thing. Thanks

references

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.