Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Universe concept: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:56, 19 September 2005

Latest revision as of 20:03, 15 March 2023

(33 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

<!--

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was '''NO CONSENSUS'''. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 00:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

===[[Electric Universe concept]]===

<div class="center">See also: Previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Electric_Universe_model Votes for deletion].</div>

'''Delete''': This article should be deleted according to the "no original research" policy. Please read the article and check the links in it before voting. The recuring defense to keeping it is the large number of sources, but if you read the sources they don't talk about this. For example the NASA link talks about electricity in our atmosphere causing light effects and such, and not about this. Also several facts in the article are obviously wrong, like the fact that craters are caused by lightning bolts instead of meteors, which has direct evidence against. [[User:Elfguy|Elfguy]] 18:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:"''The recuring defense [..] but if you read the sources they don't talk about this''" The Electric Universe concept covers many areas, including the idea that electricity plays a much greater role in the universe than generally accpeted. In this respect, the theory is consistent with many existing and accepted theories.

:"''several facts in the article are obviously wrong''" The article does not present this idea as a fact, but as a theory; I am not aware of any evidence that proves that craters can not be created my electical discharges. --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] 20:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

::Elfguy didn't say they '''couldn't''' be, and saying "there's no evidence to disprove it" brings you into [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] territory. — [[User:Ceejayoz|ceejayoz]] [[User_talk:Ceejayoz|<sup style="color:darkred;">&#9733;</sup>]] 20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Indeed. Elfguy said that several facts "are obviously wrong" without any substantiation. And many statements ''may'' be falsified by an "ugly fact", but without either, it is just opinion. --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

'''Keep:''' I'm not a believer in the Electric Universe theory, but I suggest that this article remain. I don't mind an having an unreviewed scientific theory present as long as the issue is known on a global scale (The number of Google hits and the number of editors on this article suggest it is) and it is said in the article that the theory is unsupported by the scientific community. My reasoning behind this is the article can still have a historic value even if it no longer has a scientific one. It also appears from the [[Talk:Electric_Universe_concept|talk page]] that deletion was discussed before and a consensus was not reached. I hope we are not simply debating the same points we did before. -[[User:Solarusdude|Solarusdude]] 19:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' Many of the references appear to be wrongly appropriated. Others are unscientific. So the question seems to me to be whether this is a notable social phenomenon (as it's not a scientific theory). I don't think it is but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. [[User:Dlyons493|Dlyons493]] 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep:''' I agree with Solarusdude. In my opinion, the whole Electric Universe thing is crackpot psuedoscience that's been picked up by the oddball fringe, but it does have a significant group of followers (for whatever reason) who are good at making noise. As long as the article clearly states that this is not mainstream science and is widely dismissed and riduculed as lacking merit by most every mainstream physicist, I'm fine with it being here. I do think, however, that the article has gotten badly out of control, and that someone needs to wrestle it back into having some semblance of objectivity. &mdash; [[User:Maylett|Cory Maylett]]

'''Keep''': As the main author of this article, I should mention that it has '''already''' gone through the Votes for deletion process, where originality was discussed. See previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Electric_Universe_model Votes for deletion]. The article survived the vote. --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] 20:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', per nom. — [[User:Ceejayoz|ceejayoz]] [[User_talk:Ceejayoz|<sup style="color:darkred;">&#9733;</sup>]] 20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' "Electric Universe (theory)" - I have heard of it, and don't agree with it, but think it is worthy enough to retain. --[[User:MacRusgail|MacRusgail]] 20:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

*From the 20 July closing: "The result of the debate was '''no consensus'''." Lack of consensus in a previous VfD does not establish a precedent to keep. Saying it "survived the vote" is a stretch not equivalent to "achieved consensus to keep". [[User:Barno|Barno]] 20:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Delete''': It doesn't explain what the electric universe theory is supposed to be about. Electricity is not a new discovery and electrical charge is considered in many theories. The article doesn't identify what's supposed to be missing in the mainstream theories. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 21:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' per [[User:MacRusgail|MacRusgail]]. Other than that, it is very clear to me that this is a very real pseudoscience, and the right course of action is to remove any portions of the article that are OR or unsourced. [[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] 23:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Non-notable crackpottery. The article is ''way'' too long, even if kept. [[User:Quale|Quale]] 23:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. Yes, it's a total crock, but it's a common one. We should have an article explaining what it is and why it's wrong. --[[User:Apyule|Apyule]] 01:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. This kind of BS should not be part of any self-respecting enyclopedia. [[User:Shadow demon|Shadow demon]] 02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep''', analogously to [[Flat earth]]. The Electric Universe stuff is likely pseudoscientific BS, but this article seems at least equally devoted to presenting the critiques and failure of the theory, not cheerleading for the junk science. As with [[Flat earth]], it is possible to cover junk science without ''being'' junk science. -- [[User:MCB|MCB]] 06:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' this is exactly the type of article we ''should'' be keeping, providing it gives a clear picture of the particular concept, it does not matter two hoots about it being a notable ''unscientific'' thingamabob. Has it made enough impact on our culture? I would say yes. [[User:Wiki_alf|Alf]] [[User_talk:Wiki_alf|<sup style="color:green;">melmac</sup>]] 20:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

*<s>'''Delete''' Not nearly as infamous as [[Creation science]] or the [[Flat earth]]. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 01:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)</s>

**'''Comment''': And [[Iowa]] isn't nearly as famous as [[California]], but we probably want to keep it. If you believe this phenomenon to be non-notable or non-encyclopedic, state your case, but saying X isn't nearly as well-known as very-famous Y or Z doesn't really shed any light on the issue, does it? [[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] 04:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

***That's what I said. We can't include each and every crackpottery on Earth. From what I see, this particular one is very minor, non-notable in the extreme. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 11:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

****For what it's worth, I had seen mention of this crackpottery before I ever saw the Wikipedia article. I'm pretty sure it was from [http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,68258,00.html this Wired News story.] [[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] 22:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

*****OK, I'm convinced to retract the vote. '''Keep''' this. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep''', it's not original research. Whether or not the theory is correct is not grounds for deletion. [[User:Gracefool|··gracefool]] |[[User talk:gracefool|&#9786;]] 18:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep''', this is an extremely relevant and detailed article, if you get rid of this you might as well put up [[Hollow Earth theory]] up for the scrap too. [[User:Piecraft|Piecraft]] 14:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep''', just came here via a reference from the [[Immanuel Velikovsky]] article so it's not something brand new. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 01:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep''', 28 September 2005 - If I wanted a majority point of view I would watch TV. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:196.36.80.163|196.36.80.163]] ([[User talk:196.36.80.163|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/196.36.80.163|contribs]]) 20:19, 28 September 2005</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an [[Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion|undeletion request]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>