Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary Research Institute

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Binary Research Institute

edit

The mission of the Binary Research Institute is dissemination of the theory that the Sun has got a companion star. The outfit has a website, which is rather well done, but doesn't seem to have a presence in the physical world. (At least I couldn't find any). The theory that the Sun has a companion star does exist, but as the pages at the Institute never mention the existing research they are run-of-the-mill crackpots.

Please consider in this context Walter Cruttenden as the founder of the institute, whose page is also up for deletion. Pilatus 00:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary model of equinox precession, a POV fork of Precession Pilatus 16:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"run-of-the-mill crackpots" ... there's a nice NPOV for you. Further, the pages of the Institute are replete with information and links to the research. Don't let the agenda of militant skeptics fool you. comment left by anonymous user 65.11.192.128
We are not concerned with the veracity of the theory, merely with its importance. If it has ever been mentioned anywhere in the press (not the vanity press!) it would boost the case for keeping. Pilatus 00:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment below for a link to a mention in mainstream. Oswax 11:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The ground-breaking and richly illustrated new book, Lost Star of Myth and Time, marries modern astronomical theory with ancient star lore to make a compelling case for the profound influence on our planet of a companion star to the sun." is how the review starts. This is hardly a review, it reads like advertisement copy, and on the PBS website there is no trace of the Cruttenden-sponsored documentary "The Great Year" that is mentioned in the text. Pilatus 11:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is they didn't ignore the institute and the book they published. So why should we ignore them? Don't mistake me, I think the theory is bull, but you wanted a mention, and there's one, no matter how lousy. Oswax 13:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The same text (plus or minus a paragraph) can be found at physorg, where it has the attribution "Source:Binary Research institute". It looks as if the folks at the Institute sent out press releases to everyone and their dog, and some websites did put them up. Giving space to someone's advertising material is different from reviewing a theory. Pilatus 16:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Do we have an article on this binary star system theory, however basic (just saying: this psuedoscience theory is x y z)? If we do, I'll shift my vote on this and Walter Cruttenden. Oswax 16:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a small paragraph in the Precession#Alternative views entry (section "Alternative views") where the "double star" theory is mentioned. Binary model of equinox precession is just a POV fork. Pilatus 17:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll shift my vote on both. Oswax 18:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is AFD, if we were to be NPOV in AFD, we would all vote neutral wouldn't we, and everything would be kept, which would probably satisfy many of the inclusionists here. - Hahnchen 00:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-widespread pseudoscience, probably original research as it's extraordinarily unlikely to have received peer-reviewed publicaiton. -Splashtalk 01:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not concerned with the veracity of the theory, merely with the verifiability and notability of the subject of the article, surely? Verifiability, not truth, quoth the Five Pillars. I think the theory's utter twaddle, you think the theory's utter twaddle, but then again Phlogiston's twaddle as well, and nobody's putting that on AfD.
    I vote Weak Keep, although I note even the only contributor asking to keep this can't be bothered to quote something that verifies the article, not the theory. The theory is not the concern of this AfD. This crackpot institute exists, as does the crackpot theory. And I will vote to delete any article that tries to promote a POV that the theory is true. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because it's crazy, but because it's non-notable crazy. -- Kjkolb 02:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is currently only a stub. How can the article be developed if it is attacked and shot down as soon as the stub went up. It takes time to attract interested contributors. Modern scientific research into this topic is in it's infancy, even though it was known to the ancient Greeks and other ancient civilizations. Modern science isn't going to embrace it overnight. It is, however, gaining more and more recognition, and I think the topic is important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Comment left by anonymous user 65.9.1.159.
  • Delete. Attempt to use Wikipedia to promote original research. Not a widely recognized theory either within or without the scientific mainstream. Within: Search of Proquest Research Library, an electronic index of two thousand scholarly journals: Searching for "binary research institute" did not find any documents. Apparently members of the institution have publishing nothing in these journals. Without: 315 Google hits on "Binary Research Institute," high-ranked hit on Wikipedia and its mirrors, most of them referring specifically to Cruttenden. No obvious evidence of widespread belief. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an inhabitant of an invisible non-existant planet that happens to revolve around the invisible non-existant binary star that is the focus of the above mentioned group which studies it, I have to say that this is an outrage! No-one is supposed to know about us! Delete! Wait till I tell the Lizard people! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC) This vote on the VfD of an Archeology-Astronomy-Astrology-Hinduism-History-Mythology-New Age-Star stub is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by voting delete![reply]
  • Delete, OR crackpottery. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sasquatch, would appreciate it if you would please stop vandalizing my work. Thank you, 65.9.1.159 .
  • Keep, if this organization exists and is likely to affect the beliefs of a fair amount of people. Anthony Appleyard 05:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's crackpottery, but sadly, I have to acknowledge that it is apparently notable, non-OR crackpottery, in that IMDB confirms the documentary, the producers, and that James Earl Jones appeared in it, and assuming it was released as a film and/or shown on PBS, it had a sizeable mass audience. Sigh. --MCB 06:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Changed my vote due to lack of verification that the film was shown on PBS or anywhere else. --MCB 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the website for the movie, Walter Cruttenden is listed as one of the sponsors. Vanity press, anyone? Pilatus 18:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness gracious, it was his idea to finally introduce this very ancient theory to the modern day public, the documentary is his work, he wrote it, he worked hard to produce it, he financed it, his institute is the one carrying out the research into it. If that seems like vanity press to you, I wonder how many serious, professional endeavours you've ever been involved with. IP 65.9.158.81
If he financed it himself, then it would seem exactly like vanity press to me. Publication through normal channels proves that the author of the work was able to convince others to put their money where the author's mouth is. A normal book or movie has survived a difficult external review (albeit one based on profitability rather than truth). It sets a reasonably high bar, one which a self-published work does not need to hurdle. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'I do not know if he financed the entire thing himself, or what part of it he did. A more accurate description might be that it was financed through his institute I guess. I have no idea how much came from where. It is obvious that getting knowledge of this theory out into the public is an uphill battle (that might be an understatement), but the theory itself has the potential to alter the beliefs of many millions of people (the entire population of the planet) if it were to be proven true. Like I said before, research is in its infancy, and faces heavy attack from the scientific establishment. Witness what has happened here, within a few minutes of the stub appearing it was marked for deletion. That is the kind of uphill battle Mr. Cruttenden, the Institute, and the theory face. But the potential for it to affect the lives of every human being is there.' IP 65.9.158.81
And when it is proved true, we should have an article about it. More to the point, when it can be shown to have altered the beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people, we should have an article about it. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promulgation of worthy theories. It is a encyclopedia, a secondary reference, that reports facts that are already widely accepted. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crackpottery indeed, but a very notable one at that. Owen× ☎ 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, those who are referring to this article or it's subject as crackpottery should re-think their statements, what is crackpottery one day is factual science another. Piecraft 22:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some who have voted keep here and at the Cruttenden vote are basing their votes on the existance of the DVD narrated by James Earl Jones. It should be re-stated that no-one knows for sure if the thing has even aired on PBS, which throws into doubt it's notability, and thus the notability of both related articles. In all seriousness, these need to go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • good point, i have removed PBS claim from article as it is unverified. Derex 06:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it actually aired, it should not be hard to verify this. Any supporters of the article care to step up to the plate? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Did it air on PBS or not? This is important to me, at least, in assessing whether we should have an article on it. If it did, it should be easy to provide verifiable evidence, and I hope some supporters will do so. For my part, I note that the Amazon listing makes no such claim (nor do any reader reviews). It is trivially easy to self-publish books and get them listed on Amazon; I don't know if this is true of DVDs. Search for "Cruttenden" at www.pbs.org yields six hits, none referring to this film. ("Abigail Cruttenden is a British television and film actress...") Search for "Great Year" at www.pbs.org yields 46 hits, non referring to the film. Search for "James Earl Jones" returns 40 hits, none referring to the film. DID IT AIR? IF SO, WHEN AND ON WHAT STATIONS? If someone will provide this information I think it could be verified quickly. I can't find anything at http://www.thegreatyear.com/ suggesting that it ever aired. If it aired on the PBS network I would change my vote. If it aired on a single PBS affiliate station, I would want to email them and find out more about the circumstances. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23skidoo has verified that it aired January 28, 2004 on KOCE-TV in Huntington Beach [2]. That reference doesn't indicate whether it was distributed by the PBS network, or whether it was aired by one PBS affiliate (not the same thing). I've submitted an email query to KOCE's program department inquiring about the circumstances of its airing. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, those opposing these articles should have the ability to simply type: Walter Cruttenden in Google to come up with many sites relating to the man and his research along with the PBS broadcast. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is a factual and notable person who has already been discussed throughout: [The Great Year] Piecraft 10:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the discussion about the institute. The man, the theory and the movie have each their own discussion. As far as the "Binary Research Institute" goes, it has 300 Google hits, 97 of which are unique. A bunch of these are speaking engagements on the esoteric circuit, the rest are copies of the press release on the movie and Wikipedia entries. There is no indication that the institute or the theory ever hit the mainstream. A Google search for '"The Great Year" Cruttenden' returns 48 unique hits; again many of these are copies of the press release. The movie is self-produced; there is no inducation that Cruttenden managed to find an investor. No indication is given anywhere that it was shown on PBS or anywhere outside the esoteric circuit. Walter Cruttenden himself heads an investment firm with a staff of three. Cruttenden exists, sure, but he has done nothing but finance a movie and set up a website. Even fervent inclusionists usually draw the line at personal vanity and self-promotion. Pilatus 13:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It hardly seems like a vanity page and does not fall into what appears to be the category of the WP:NOT - you can find further relevance to this article by seeking out the official site of the [Binary Research Institute] and checking the link for Board of Advisors, the names placed are of notable people which can also be Googled, this is a relevant Institute which has been around since 2001. Even fervent deletionists can't come up with a good enough excuse for deletion, until you can prove to me this is purely for vanity purposes than I rest on the case that it is a relevant encyclopedic article that ascribes to an Institute founded by a notable individual as can be seen from the notable and reputable background and coverage on the Net. Piecraft 13:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This discussion is about the institute. It was founded four years ago, and if it had made any impact it would by now clock up more than 100 hits on Google. Again, the discussion is not about the qualification of the members, it's about what the organization has achieved. If they haven't done anything except self-publish a movie and a book they ought to go. (I guess I'm applying a standard similar to WP:MUSIC.) Pilatus 14:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion is about the article about the Binary Reasearch Institute, then I would suggest it be kept - i've read it's less than 10 lines several times, and found it not objectionable at all, nor it falls into any category of non NPOV - it's merely a stub about what IS this institute, nothing else. If the pseudoscientific theory they're trying to promote shouldn't be here according to wikipedia (original research) then well, that's another thing - the article about that theory should be deleted. The same about article on Walter Cruttenden himself and the film "The Great Year". Registered at least, hope this helps (BattleTroll)

  • Delete. Non-notable crackpot institution. If it is kept I will say that the article shows remarkable restraint for a crackpottery-related topic and sticks to neutral and verifiable (or practically verifiable) statements. Quale 08:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. The delitionist attitudes here are unbelieveably oppressive. The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 16:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian[reply]
    • Comment, thank you Pilatus for proving my point. I couldn't have done it better myself. The rabidness with which you are going about this, and the fact that now you are stalking me and adding "special comments" to my contributions here further proves that these three nominations were in BAD FAITH. You proved it better than I or anyone else could. Earthian 17:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If your edits are only to this and related VfDs Pilatus has every right to point that out. Roughly, 100 diverse edits prove an editor stopping by a VfD is "disinterested" rather than pushing their own cruft or creations. Marskell 18:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfDs are closed by an admin who was not involved in the debate to prevent conflicts of interest. The offer still stands: instead of complaining feel free to add content to improve the article. Also note that there is broad consensus for my edits. Pilatus
    • Syug, your comments are vague and general. We're talking about one particular article here. I infer that you think Pilatus has intentionally damaged the article in order to influence voting. Which are the specific edits where you think he's done this? I looked at one case of an editor "(correcting more Pilatus syntax errors)" and it didn't look to me like anything that would affect voting. Your own edits, which he removed, didn't seem like anything that would have led people to vote "keep" had they been left in. Nor do I see any evidence in the discussion that anyone is complaining about typos or grammatical errors or using them as a reason for deletion. If you think that Pilatus has been deliberately damaging the article in order to influence people to vote for deletion, you really should open a WP:RFC on this. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this might not be good faith here Yuckfoo 21:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons expressed many times already. -R. fiend 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each.Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, unlikely to have many non-POV contributors.--inks 08:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the institute has not yet had enough impact on the world to be encyclopedic. The Literate Engineer 22:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal Though I know most would like to see these three artciles deleted, why not merge them altogether into one article describing the phenomenon, the man and the institute (including his film) - as for the title it could be placed under "Binary model of equinox precession" Piecraft 12:33, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Binary_Research_Institute&oldid=1179905197"