- 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 No Consensus. Having analysed the arguments put forward by both sides, I have concluded that there is insufficient consensus in either direction (Keep or Delete) for any other action to be taken in closing this AfD, except No Consensus. Anthøny 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This particular idea has received neither notoriety, mention, nor popular reception as a scientific idea or even notable pseudoscience meme. I suggest deletion per the WP:SCI and WP:FRINGE guidelines as both its content its author and originator are of dubious notability. The only mainstream notice of this idea and its inventor, Ricardo Carezani, has been through a single wired.com article which is not nearly enough to establish notability. (See a previous AfD decision for precedent in this regard.) What's more, this article was started and maintained by autodynamics supporter David de Hilster and therefore much of the prose may represent a conflict of interest or even soapboxing. Please research this one carefully. Nondistinguished 21:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also consider commenting on the related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Carezani. Nondistinguished 21:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It's a well-known crank theory, article is well-referenced and correctly points out the crackpot status of the theory. It's notable, despite the nom's claims, but barely. Xihr 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to any sources for your opinion that this idea is "well-known"? I can only find the one wired.com article. Nondistinguished 21:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think Wired isn't good enough? Xihr 21:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is a single article only. Note the similarity to a previous AfD decision. A topic that has as its only outside reliable source (according to web guidelines) a single article in a web-based magazine doesn't really rise to a notable or encyclopedic idea. There doesn't seem to be any mainstream interest in the subject nor does there seem to be anyone who actually promotes the idea except the originator of the article. I guess you could try to make the claim that it is a notable internet meme, but I don't see the websites it is based on rising to the level required for even that set of criteria.Nondistinguished 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think Wired isn't good enough? Xihr 21:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to any sources for your opinion that this idea is "well-known"? I can only find the one wired.com article. Nondistinguished 21:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article on the person, below, and merge this one in. I think on general grounds of what should be covered in an encyclopedia that crank theories which are likely to be found on the web are appropriate, if there is enough material to write the article. and i consider the single wired article sufficient for the purpose. The proponents' websites are RSs for what they think. The electric universe discussion was wrongly decided, and we are fortunately not bound by precedent. I am puzzled why many editors who share with me a desire to educate about nonsense pretending as science think this is best done by eliminating such articles. Before the internet, one could hope thatthe public would never come in contact with such theories, but that day is over.
- I think the article on the person is the better choice, because there's more to say. There is certainly no justification for both. DGG (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are insinuating, it seems, is that this person/idea derives notability from prominence on the internet. However, it isn't clear that these ideas rise to the level of notability required for internet-related articles. Certainly the reason that we have an article on this idea is because the people who began writing it were trying to get it promoted on the internet. However, according to our internet notability guidelines it seems that this person/idea doesn't meet our own requirements. I think the last bit of argumentation you use is insinuating that Wikipedia is something it is not. In particular, it is not the job of Wikipedia to "educate about nonsense pretending to be science". If DGG wants to start a website devoted to that, he should. However, that is not the job of an encyclopedia. Nondistinguished 00:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article on the person is the better choice, because there's more to say. There is certainly no justification for both. DGG (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article fairly represents a "pseudo-science" theory and explains why it's not accepted by mainstream science. That makes it educational for a reader who has come across the concept and is trying to learn more outside of AD websites. Frankly, I think the bio on Ricardo Carezani should go; he's notable only for his crackpot theory. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is a good rationale for a keep. Just because an article is "educational" doesn't mean that it should be kept. See WP:USEFUL. Nondistinguished 00:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean this aspect of WP:USEFUL: “In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful."”? On its own merit, though, Autodynamics, should be considered notable as being one of the few theories positing the invalidity of the theory of relativity, and the only one I know of that claims to base its case on a purported “math error”. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are positing your argument a bit too much on what you are "aware of" rather than trying to be comprehensive in your research. In particular, here are a few other pseudoscience arguments against relativity being due to math errors (and all unrelated to autodynamics):
- Do all those ideas deserve Wikipedia articles too? Nondistinguished 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two seem to be nothing more than people trying to call Carezani’s theory their own, and the last is a blog with SF-cruft, so, no, I don’t see any need for articles on them. On the contrary, it seems to underscore the “usefulness” of having an article on AD (and since it appears to have precedence, not those of later imitators or “rediscovers”). Perhaps a better alternative would be to have an article addressing Einstein’s purported math error, but I’m not sure there exists a recognizable “generic” name. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are positing your argument a bit too much on what you are "aware of" rather than trying to be comprehensive in your research. In particular, here are a few other pseudoscience arguments against relativity being due to math errors (and all unrelated to autodynamics):
- You mean this aspect of WP:USEFUL: “In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful."”? On its own merit, though, Autodynamics, should be considered notable as being one of the few theories positing the invalidity of the theory of relativity, and the only one I know of that claims to base its case on a purported “math error”. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but Carezani should probably be merged here; he has no notability aside from this crackpot theory. Perhaps we should also take a look at User:Dehilster's other self-promotional contributions: Brazilian Street Carnaval and especially SambaLá Samba School. Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have heard of this too, but entirely on USENET. The article does not establish notability, as I can find no evidence reliable independent secondary sources which discuss Autodynamics. This theory also appears to be so lacking in support that WP:UNDUE also calls for its removal (even though this could be considered the "ancilliary article" refered in that section of policy.) --EMS | Talk 05:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete It's true that people who pay attention to crackpot physics have heard of Autodynamics. The reason for this is that the theory's booster, David de Hilster, a) posts to newsgroups, b) (once or twice) spams university physics lists, and c) promotes himself on Wikipedia; it is not because, e.g., Autodynamics has a following (like, e.g., Tom Bearden, or even Time Cube) or a public presence (like, e.g., Steorn). 18.4.2.3 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there is a wired article on it. Not to mention others. Mathmo Talk 00:02, 8 August 2007 (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.