Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specified complexity

Specified complexity

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

According to the template, it fails WP:N and is possibly a hoax, for its accuracy and truthfulness is disputed. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious pseudoscience, not notable for even being a misunderstanding, unlike intelligent design. Some of it could be merged into the authors' names. At least needs TNT in some sections. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep: Recently applied tags notwithstanding, article seems well sourced. The topic has attracted enough scholarly commentary to demonstrate notability. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just because an idea is pseudoscience doesn't mean coverage of the topic is not encyclopedic. There's an extensive encyclopedic coverage of things like Hermetica. The article might be a hoax if it was written credulously, but the text is actually pretty upfront about the non-scientific nature of the topic (WP:NHOAX). 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 22:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject matter being pseudoscientific is not a reason to delete the article. It just means we need to be careful to follow WP:FRINGE. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NHOAX. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not keen on the concept or the people associated with it, but that's beside the point: it has been widely discussed and needs to have an article. Athel cb (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable pseudoscientific topic. I don't like it. I don't agree with it. I would hope the Wikipedia page for it will remain one that posits it *as* pseudoscience. But there's no grounds to delete.Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William Dembski. I see no benefit in having a separate article, TBH. jps (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline. Dembski's article is over 90k characters, which says adding another 20k~30k from this article might not be advisable. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think there is considerable article bloat in both places. jps (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any specific examples of "considerable article bloat" in this article or in William Dembski? Partofthemachine (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loving documentation of bullshit like Specified_complexity#Specificity is not really something well attested to in reliable sources. Wikipedia ought to excise such blatherskite. jps (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]