Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclic Multiverse Theory

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be an alternative cosmogony created by the article's author. A Google search yeilds one hit -- a Web forum discussion where the author apparently first posted his ideas last year. The article's author and only editor has no other pages to his credit. See the Talk page for details. Shouldn't this article be moved to Wikibooks, at the very least? Ahasuerus 01:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kmarinas86 02:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)There are other places where I have posted this. They go under the name of Cyclical Multiverse Theory or Fractal Universe Theory, or just "Fractal Universe". I'll consider the possbility of moving this article to Wikibooks. First I'll need to figure out what that is.[reply]

Wikibooks is a place where all kinds of open-content non-encyclopedic texts (manuals, textbooks, etc) can be posted -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks for details. I am not sure if they have more specific rules, though, so it may be prudent to ask around first :) Ahasuerus 03:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Niz 08:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. WAS 4.250 13:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. Andrew pmk | Talk 15:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Kmarinas86 10:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)The article Cyclic Multiverse Theory was copied into Wikibooks (page not book): http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cyclic_Multiverse_Theory[reply]

• Keep - pseudoscience apparently though, and I have slapped a neutrality warning on it. --MacRusgail 16:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the three pieces of evidence that it's original research: 1)Pseudoscience with no mass following, 2)Self-references in the article to "the author" and Kmarinas86, 3)Kmarinas having effectively admitted it's original research in this discussion. The Literate Engineer 16:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Kmarinas86 17:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Psuedoscience... ok, because I am not able to come up with actual data of my own. that's why I resort to proposing certain things in order to explain present day cosmological problems - without doing mathematics i'm not capable of, eventhough I find mathematics relatively easy. I don't see how it would become psuedo science just because it's new or presents an alternative. But I think it may be psuedoscience in any case, if no one accepts it. Or perhaps because its pseudoscience, it's not accepted. Is that almost the entirety of the criteria? It appears that's how the word psuedoscience is used. No matter the degree of it, I suppose most believe it requires "no explanation" other than that it is "original research" with no credentialed scientists involved, nor interpreted at the time of a real experiment's completion, making it "psuedoscience".....[reply]

--Kmarinas86 18:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Never mind my madness... I'm going to move it to http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page[reply]

• Delete as this has already been moved elsewhere. On a side note, wouldn't this be a hypothesis and not a theory? It appears the prediction have not been proven yet...--Isotope23 19:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a hypothesis if never tested; a theory if at least one verification has been made. So, looks all hypothetical.

--24.167.40.92 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)The problem is that the experiments that would have verified, parts, of it have already been done. My hypothesis so for is to be compatible with that knowledge, as if the hypothesis were decided before the experiment was done (and verified in this sense). Experiments, for example, include those about: Redshift of Distant Galaxies, Missing Mass Problem, and the Nature of Distant Galaxies.[reply]

--24.167.40.92 20:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)However, I know that not all of it is proven yet, and some of it is not provable or disprovable, yet. So is it conjecture? Yes, because some of the things it predicts haven't been seen yet. It is it a theory? It "predicts" a few things which have already shown to be the case - but that was after the fact. I haven't discovered all of its predictions though. So with time, I may be able to find more ways as to how this can be verified or debunked.[reply]

• Delete per above. Jtmichcock 05:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NOR. --JJay 12:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; this is pretty much a poster child for No Original Research. MCB 18:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOR. Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 24 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.