Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum aetherdynamics

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 for failure to demonstrate any independent coverage. I'm invoking WP:SNOW to close the discussion early, as no other outcome but delete is likely based on discussion to date. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum aetherdynamics

This is original research, with no independent coverage. All material relating to this theory comes from self-published books and articles; there is no sign that anybody other than the two authors has ever referred to this theory. Looie496 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that no independent coverage seems to exist. Their own press release describes them as amateur physicists. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To some, being an amateur yet still succeeding in a field is a badge to be worn with pride. If professional physicists are so great, howcome they haven't found the theory of everything? Remember that Einstein was also an amateur working outside the clique of academe! And Wikipedia isn't just about what professionals say, else there wouldn't be so many articles on anime. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry if I implied that amateurs are inferior to professionals, or that Wikipedia shouldn't listen to amateurs, as neither of these was my intention. Indeed, Wikipedia is largely a creation of amateurs who have pulled of something more popular than well financed encyclopedia publishers have managed. What I'm looking for is the verification that the authors are "succeeding in the field." Or more humbly, that they are at least being noticed. If their book has not been reviewed by reliable sources, or at least garnered media attention, then their work is not notable. So you see, the validity of their work doesn't matter, nor should it, as Wikipedia editors are not in the business of deciding what the correct theory of everything is. Instead, we are just trying to limit our coverage of theories of physics to those that are noteworthy. And if no reliable sources have reviewed this theory, then we have no way of distinguishing it from the whole body of crank physics book out there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-professional contributions to science are sometimes covered in Wikipedia if they are widely commented upon by mainstream sources. Which is not the case here. A theory needs to be well-regarded by somebody besides its own inventors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the level of professionalism involved there are no independent sources; everything is self-published. Ironholds (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the work is reliably sourced, and is notable in that it has been commented upon by, inter alia:
- Arthur C. Clarke, who had the decency to admit that it was 'way over his head'
- Professor VV Raman of the Rochester Institute of Technology, reviewer of the likes of Dawkins and Penrose, who wrote of the book Secrets of the Aether that it is 'highly original...deserves careful attention before passing judgment'
- Dr. Phil Risby of the University of London who said that it may hold the key to a new level of understanding
- James Jacobs, creator of Helical Geometry, who is constructing a version of quantum aetherdynamics' Helicoid Torus Model
In addition:
- The work was featured in Infinite Energy magazine, volume 12, issue 69
- The authors were invited to present their paper at the Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory conference hosted by Professor M. C. Duffy of the University of Sunderland, at a venue in Imperical College, London
And it was also selected to be beamed into space as part of the the second ever email to the Galactic Internet...jokes aside, it was broadcast as a part of the Cosmic Call 2003 program from a powerful satellite dish in the Ukraine.
Thus I would submit that while the mainstream media might not publish much about this sort of thing (you don't read too many articles about topos theory in your daily tabloid either) it is at least relatively notable within its highly specialised field. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And do you have any evidence to back these claims up? Ironholds (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - ..and can you provide it? Ironholds (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there's enough media coverage to justify notability: see 1, 2, 3, and 4. However, this only establishes notability, it doesn't establish reliable sources that back up what the article is saying. Therefore, I'd have to say delete. Matt (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an article in the Northwest Herald of McHenry County, Illinois, a press release, another press release, and a self-published book whose author can't spell very well. Doesn't establish notability in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases by the creator(s)/inventor(s) of a subject, such as the one re-printed by UPI that you cited, do not establish notability. As Wikipedia:Notability explains, notability is established by multiple published works that document the subject in depth from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. Press releases by the creator(s)/inventor(s) of a subject are not independent. Please determine notability properly. Uncle G (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the notability established, then. Remember that the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Hence, it doesn't matter if the theory is true or not, it matters only whether the article gives an accurate description of what quantum aetherdynamics is about. Thus, as long as all claims made by the theory are contextualised as such, and not as statements of truth, then they can be included. At a minimum, surely the article (and to be honest this would require a rewrite) could include only and all the information mentioned in the third party sources you give above (and the others that exist)?
The solution seems to be to rework the article so that it includes the right sort of information, and not just delete it out of hand. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A press release provided by the creator(s) of the concept is not a third-party source. Uncle G (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete author is on a soapbox unbecoming of a mainstream encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless serious and detailed discussions on the theory at hand, by established physicists in reputable sources, are forthcoming. PR Newswire, philsci-archive, or a newspaper column where the creator is permitted to sensationalize the theory without question, do not cut it. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable physics theory with low-quality references that appear to be self-published. Cardamon (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fringe hokum. Verbal chat 09:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cardamon and others. Tonywalton ^Talk 10:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources offered. N p holmes (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI agree - until the theory has been peer reviewed and found to have some merit - it should be deleted. PhySusie (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "a new paradigm in physics" should be published in reliable sources, not Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't the right place to rail against "orthodox lackeys of the Ptolemaic establishment". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable nonsense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all above, original research and soapboxing: it has the potential to revolutionise physics much like the discovery of Copernicus did so many centuries ago. Sorry, but the earth is still flat, Ptolemy was right, and man will never fly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per just about everybody. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Nowhere near the level of reliable sourcing we'd need for something like this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this statement and the previous one, extraordinary claims don't require better sources in Wikipedia than ordinary claims, just equally good ones. Also I ask any future commenters to refrain from making unnecessarily insulting remarks. Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the principle that exceptional claims require exceptional sources is part of Wikipedia policy. You may want to try [Citizendium], where standards are looser. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text of that section merely says "high quality sources", and in practice that's all we ever ask for. If an article about this theory had been published in a basic reputable physics journal like Phys Rev, I don't think we would ask for more. I will clarify, though: exceptional claims without exceptional sources should be characterized as fringe when they are described. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless lets-all-pile-in delete - worthless rubbish: the toilets strike back! But Boris is wrong; this calls for wackopedia William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
o.O Delete - not enough here to provide verification, notability, etc. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone but article creator. Is it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, adding a superfluous vote only because I want to qualify as an "orthodox lackey of the Ptolemaic establishment."[1] That sounds cool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you get free tunnel vision, too. I image that allows you through use the quantum tunnelling to look through solid walls, but I don't know exactly which superpowers you get in the Ptolemaic order. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is a not a repertory of crackpot theories.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.