Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary model of equinox precession

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 2 keep/9 delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing but a POV fork of precession to give voice to Walter Cruttenden and his Binary Research Institute, which are up for deletion here and here.

Also consider The Great Year (film), whose AfD page is here. Pilatus 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "double star" theory is mentioned somewhere near the bottom of the Precession entry. Pilatus 16:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV promotion and BRIcruft. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pseudoscience. Dlyons493 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete patent nonsense. Dunc|☺ 19:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotion. Original research. Title embodies a point of view. To keep it, it would need to be moved it to a neutral title and rewritten to a neutral viewpoint. But it is not a belief system that is widely enough held to need an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Complete drivel. --Ian Pitchford 20:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands today (2005-09-26) clearly states that the standard physics theory completely disagrees with this model. It also states that most mainstream scientists regard it as nothing more than pseudoscience - this is stated not once, but three times during the article, as well as 2 reasons for considering it pseudoscience (lack of empirical evidence and unfalsiability) are provided. However, if these 2 criteria were universally applied, the theory of superstrings should also be clasified as pseudoscience (it's unfalsifiable and right now there's no evidence for it), as well as the "dark matter" theories (MOND does have empirical evidence in it's favor, predicted acurately some behaviour of low emission galaxies and is falsifiable) I wrote the entry on the double star theory ("Nemesis", which itself was proposed by a respected mainstream scientist, though not well regarded today) was deleted from the Precession "alternative views" entry. I left it out for I wanted to settle down the controversy surrounding the article. I myself find some aspects of the "bin. model of eq. prec." objectionable, and it's proponents don't do their own theory any favor (trying to pass ancient Indian religious texts as scientific evidence isn't sound to say the least) but nonetheless interesting as it relates very well to the Nemesis theory and could have something to do with it - it could very well be possible that a rotating sun/nemesis system induced a slight parallax change thru millenia, which could add to the natural precession of Earth due to gyroscopic effect. Mr. Pitchford, if you don't mind a little criticism... have you ever read Kuhn or Feyerabend? Sometimes you sound REALLY dogmatic on your writings, as though your views on science were more akin to August Comte's positivism than to modern epistemology as put together since popper, kuhn, lakatos or feyerabend's times... By the way, now I've registered. BattleTroll

• • I agree with Battle Troll. Many of these scientific apologists are as closed-minded and dogmatic as the religious folks they despise so much. In fact, many of their views and exclusionist attitudes are as bad as anything in Catholic Church history, including the Inquisition that so many of them love to use as an example of oppression. The irony is, they're members of a Science Inquisition that is going on in modern times that's just as bent on silencing differing views as the Catholic Inquisition was. They also have a lot in common with the Christian fundamentalists that they criticize so much. Earthian 16:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete POV fork written to promote a specific point of view, one which does not have enough adherents to warrant documenting as a belief system. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC) See below.[reply]

• Keep nuff said. Piecraft 01:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it isn't even pseudoscience - if anything, it is complete gibberish. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, this is yet another BAD FAITH nomination by User:Pilatus trying to censor alternative scientific views. Disgusting. Earthian 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and contributed mostly to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian[reply]
  • This debate isn't about censorship. Creationism, Alfven's plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe concept all have entries here. (I actually voted keep on the Electric Universe.) Please show that someone actually cares about this model, and the entry will be kept. And stop shouting Bad Religion, they are a band. Pilatus 18:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earthian, would you mind citing something that would tend to convince me that as of 2005 this particular theory has a significant number of adherents? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am about to try an informal test. I do not know how it is going to turn out. I am going to search the "bad astronomy" site and see if Cruttenden is mentioned. If so, I will change my vote to "keep." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, ambiguous outcome. Although it is mentioned, it is only mentioned in a discussion forum, not on the main site itself. Trying to be as fair to myself as possible, I am withdrawing my "delete" vote, but I'm not going to change it to "keep." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pseudoscience. Self-promotion. 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. 62.64.220.164 08:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 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.[reply]
  • 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 15:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is, and I agree with your point of view, but to stop anonymous users from rigging votes, we suggest that you Log in before participating. Dunc|☺ 15:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I decided to consult my university library's online-access-to-scholarly-journals service. The journal Solar System Research (English translation of Astronomicheskii Vestnik) has 23 articles since November 2000 containing the word "binary", 23 that contain the word "equinox", and 2 that contain both. One's about the binary asteriod 423 Diotima and the other's about the Ephemerides of Planets and the Moon. Neither mentions this theory, and no article mentions Cruttenden. The journal Astronomy and Astrophysics (affiliated with the European Southern Observatory) has, since 2001, 0 articles mentioning Cruttenden, and 0 results for the search [binary AND "equinox precession"). The journal New Astronomy has, since July 1996, had 0 articles containing the word "Cruttenden" and 0 articles containing the three words "equinox", "binary", and "precession", in any order. In light of this, I think this is a violation of the general policy espoused in WP:NOT Sec. 1.4, as the hypothesis lacks the widespread notability/influence to make it legitimately encyclopedic. This is also a potential violation of WP:NOT 1.3.1, as the lack of acknowledgement outside the originators suggests that this article constitutes "proposing theories". As such, I am convinced that the proper course of action is to Delete this entry. The Literate Engineer 23:16, 1 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.