Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocentric universe (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Robert Lanza. The opinions are irreconcilable, and further discussion will not clarify anything. In such a case, the compromise solution has advantages: Merge to the principal author. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentric universe

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Biocentric universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to me to violate WP:FRIND in the sense that the proposal claims a level of seriousness (a radical rethinking of all of physics), but has not received the serious independent evaluation required to establish the proposal is at all notable beyond the News-of-the-Weird (forbidden by WP:NFRINGE) promotions or the attempts by the idea's proponents to push this idea here on Wikipedia. Additionally, note that we have an article on the main author of the subject Robert Lanza which can accommodate a modicum of space this particular idea -- which has not been noticed enough to deserve its own article. I would have merged the article myself, but contentious discussions like this are supposed to be had at AfD. jps (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - Support merger of necessary material into biography of its author at this point. Spinout might be justified again later, if the subject has demonstrably received sufficient independent attention to merit it, but it seems to me that there is likely insufficient independent reliable source discussion of this idea to merit a standalone article. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim is false. You state that the subject has demonstrably received insufficient independent attention to merit it.
  • let's look at the actual facts:
Here is just a small cross-section of articles about biocentrism written by completely independent sources
  • SCIENCE CHANNEL [Through the Wormhole], [1], one of the top American science documentary TV series narrated by Morgan Freeman.
  • USA Today, [2], which was written by Dan Vergano, who was one of their veteran science reporters.
  • MSNBC [Cosmic Log], [3], which was written by Alan Boyle, long-time MSNBC Science Editor
  • FORBES, [4], written by Matthew Herper, their Senior Editor who covers science and medicine for Forbes magazine.
  • HOUSTON CHRONICAL, [5], written by Eric Berger, who was the long-time Science Editor at the Houston Chronical.
  • THE INDEPENDENT The Independent, written by John Hall, Senior Online Reporter at The Independent
  • THE DAILY MAIL, The Daily Mail, written by Victororia Woollaston, Science and Technology Editor at MailOnline.
  • CANADIAN BROADCAST CORPORATION Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and hour-long special by Paul Kennedy, Host of Ideas, one of the most respected radio programs in the world.Josophie (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of these refs have already been discussed. None of them are the kind of courses that this would get if it were a mainstream approach to philosophy. This is pop-culture woo and has been covered in the media as such. There is zero serious discussion of this in serious sources and that makes it impossible to write a NPOV article about it. You can't have it both ways and say "this is a serious, real topic" and yet keep bringing only poor quality popular media sources about it. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it is hilarious that you are so emphatically asserting the Daily Mail as showing that something is important in the RW. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? I understand you have your own personal feelings (you’ve already made your views perfectly clear over and over). But “Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman,” MSNBC, Forbes, CBC etc are hardly “pop-culture woo” and not “serious sources”Josophie (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I was just trying to show a variety of sources - TV, radio, and yes even one source "Daily Mail" that isn't high-browJosophie (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mail is not not-highbrow; it has been rejected by the community as unreliable, time after time, as I have already linked to below. Your citing it and now even defending it shows how little you understand or even care about Wikipedia and its standards for quality content. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was being lazy by not looking into Lanza's notability, but I have done so since you replied and seen that he is very obviously notable, so my opinion about this article becomes merge. I think it's rather sad when someone so obviously expert in his own field of expertise gets into pseudoscience outside of that field. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was already extensively debated and the result was “keep.” The conclusion stated “A majority of editors have argued to keep the article, and their arguments have been convincing with regards to coverage of the topic. Arguments against keeping focused on the theory's scientific merits, which is beyond the scope of this discussion, or made mistaken claims about the article's sourcing.”

Absolutely nothing has changed that would substantially impact this conclusion, other than the fact that handful of people personally don’t like the idea.

The suggestion to merge this page is a bad one. In fact, that’s how it actually started out, but it quickly blew out of control and the editors moved it to its own page. Dragging this topic over to a living persons page would be a mistake. The cycle would occur all over again. More importantly, the book "Biocentrism" (as well as the follow-up book “Beyond Biocentrism”) was co-authored by Professor Bob Berman who has been listed as the most widely read astronomer in the world (it’s not just Lanza).

It should also be pointed out that this page (at last count) receives a daily average of 401 pageviews, and has received 114,422 pageviews in the last two years alone.

As justification for a 2nd nomination to delete page, the author states “the proposal is at all notable beyond the News-of-the-Weird (forbidden by WP:NFRING) promotions or the attempts by the idea's proponents to push the idea here on Wikipedia).” This is false and inaccurate. I would not call coverage by USA Today, MSNBC, NBCNews Forbes, Discover Magazine, Wired, Huffington Post, The Scientist, The Guardian, The American Scholar, among others, “News-of-the-Weird.” In fact, the Science Channel (Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman) devoted an entire segment to biocentrism. Just a few weeks ago the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC's) Ideas, one of the oldest and most respected radio programs in the world, devoted an entire hour to biocentrism. Wired magazine also ran a related article a few weeks ago, which was the most popular article on the site for several days (gathering over 63,000 shares).

Nobel laureate Thomas said “The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole.” NASA Astrophysicist David Thompson said it “is a wake-up call.” Physicist Scott Tyson said "Dr. Lanza’s writings provided me with the pieces of perspective that I had been desperately seeking [when it came to particle physics]” Dr. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, said “True, yes; politically correct, hell no.” R. Stephen Berry, Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago; past Home Secretary, National Academy of Sciences said “I like to see books published that challenge my own ideas and thoughts in ways that make me think, but not ones that simply throw dogma at me.” NASA Geophysicist Gunther Kletetschka said “Lanza has come up with an innovative approach to investigate reality from the viewpoint of biology.” I would hardly call this fring promotion.Josophie (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Bob Berman is not a professor, as far as I know. I also do not think he has a degree in astronomy. He appears to be a rather accomplished popular science author, amateur astronomer, and radio programmer. If this isn't a WP:FRINGE promotion, where are the peer-reviewed articles on the subject? jps (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bob Berman was an Adjunct Professor of Astronomy at Marymount Manhattan College (please see his Wikipedia page)Josophie (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge There is an obvious lack of independent sources that discuss this; the advocates who sit on this article have reverted almost all discussion from independent sources by calling their quality into question (See for example this talk section; still also this kind of blatantly POV editing, removing an EL critical of the theory and replacing it with a link to another Lanza website, with a fraudulent edit note.) Just to make that clear -- the advocates' consistent removal of content critical of the notion on the basis that the sources are not reliable sources, just shows how FRINGE this is (there is little to no independent discussion of it in high quality sources), as well as demonstrating that the topic lacks basic notability. Just look at it - the article is overwhelmingly sourced to refs by Lanza and Berman; there are few solid, independent sources with significant discussion. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging is not appropriate (Wikipedia: Merging).
  • First, it does not satisfy any of the major reasons to merge pages:
1. Not DUPLICATE
2. Not OVERLAP
3. TEXT not short and is likely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time.
In fact, Berman and Lanza just co-authored a second bestselling book (Beyond Biocentrism) this year that has not even been mentioned on the page yet.
Just a few weeks ago, one of the authors published a peer-reviewed article addressing one of the core ideas of biocentrism in the same scientific journal that published both of Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity. Indeed, this paper was the cover story of this renowned physics journal.
4. CONTEXT does not require more background material or context for readers to understand.
  • Second, it should be noted that you cannot merge a topic into one person’s page when clearly two separate individuals (a well-known astronomer and a well-known biologist) co-authored “Biocentrism” together. They have both written (and spoken) extensively on the topic, even though they seem to come at it from different scientific disciplines and perspectives.Josophie (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would expand the number of significant third-party sources from the four currently on the entry to fourteen, more than a three-fold increase. Would that alter your opinion on its current notability? It appears no one has touched the page really since the last keep vote, so the number of sources on the page is very much out of date.

In addition, a second book has been published by Lanza and Berman on the subject published by a major trade publisher entitled “Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness”, which does not even appear in the entry yet. That book received reviews from The Scientist, among others. It appears to me that the only argument for the deletion nom or to merge is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or a misreading of the available sources, which was a critique of the deletionist rationale last time around. If there is only increasing public attention to the topic, why would it now be the time to delete? Open to other points of view.Grump International (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC) — Grump International (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Having not looked over all the links provided above, other than the article titles embedded in the links, I have to very seriously question whether they all discuss the idea independently, or whether they simply repeat what the author said. That problem exists with a large number of fringey topics. I tend to think that if there is little if any serious analysis of the idea, or little discussion other than basically repeating what is said in the book, there might still be very serious questions as to whether there is sufficient independent coverage of the work to support an independent article. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most seemed analytical to me after reading them, not sure how much one can glean about their quality from solely reviewing the titles of articles :) Either way, the problem may be that this should be about the book rather than the concept in the book. Given that the subsection on the Lanza page would indeed have all fourteen instances of major coverage supporting it (assuming someone executes the merge proper), how much more major coverage would be required? It seems that to require 20 or 30 major sources would disqualify most of the entire encyclopeadia’s articles from existing. I’m more curious than anything in asking. Grump International (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC) — Grump International (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Just for clarity : the articles are the ten above, in addition to the Houston Chronicle, Forbes, MSNBC (Boyle article, not Lanza’s), USA Today, Journal of Consciousness, and Smithsonian articles already used in the entry. That actually makes 16. Grump International (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking for a hard rule, I don't think there is one, other than, maybe, that an article of less than "start" class or very weak start class probably isn't considered notable enough for a separate article. Articles on books and concepts in books so far as I remember actually have different standards of notability, and there might be grounds to say that what meets one standard might not necessarily as obviously meet another. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I still think the 16 sources available is enough, they're both significant and international in scope. Just my two cents. Grump International (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC) — Grump International (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs). [reply]
  • let's look at the sources provided above:
kind of OK for popular media
  • Martin, Sean (29 November 2016). "Is death just an ILLUSION? Consciousness CONTINUES in alternate universe, scientist claims". Express.co.uk.
  • Hall, John (15 November 2013). "Is there an afterlife? The science of biocentrism can prove there is,". The Independent.
  • Kennedy, Paul (October 4, 2016). "Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death". CBC Radio.
crappy or blog
crappy or blog with only passing mention (so even worse)
garbage
not independent
no idea, not in English
Bottom line here is that a) this is supposed to be something serious, a "new philosophy", b) that is science based (Quoting him from the CBC radio show: "Biocentrism is a new view of everything. In this view, life and consciousness are central to any new understanding of the universe. ... This new worldview is completely based on science, and is better supported by the scientific evidence, than traditional explanations" (from about 1 minutes to 2 minutes in). So... where are the serious sources from the fields of philosophy or science discussing this supposedly very important and very "science-based" notion?
I'll note Steven Novella has written about this which is a sign that we are definitely in FRINGE land, science-wise
  • Novella, Steven (November 25, 2013). "Biocentrism". NeuroLogica Blog.
-- Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that only 3, in your mind, are notable. Plus the 6 on the page, which makes 9. The Spanish article is one of the most respected papers in the Spanish media. That would make 10. I disagree that sources like GeekWire, Epoch Times, and Daily Mail are “garbage”. It doesn’t matter that we have differing views on the sources though, as I also differ on your view of some of the others. It is still more than were on the entry originally by quite a bit, even if being very picky. Also, since when did I say this isn’t Fringe? Fringe is not an argument for deletion either way, but I never said it wasn’t Fringe. On that we agree. Grump International (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC) — Grump International (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs). [reply]
No that is not what I am saying. I am saying only three are kind of OK for a notability discussion, but there is a huge gaping hole where there should be sources from the field of philisosophy or science (journal articles, other books, etc) discussing this. If other experts in the field don't consider this even worth discussing it is a sign that we are in FRINGE territory. The fact that Novella wrote about it means we are there too.
the fact that you are unaware how the community views Daily Mail shows that you don't really understand how the community views sources and their reliability (look through these search results and you will see it is universally disdained for the tabloid rag it is). I am not going to continue responding to you, and please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that the biocentrism books have two authors, both notable scientists with their own WP articles, is reason alone keep the article without merging. The authors are notable for work outside of biocentrism, so a merge is inappropriate. It doesn't matter how many editors stamp their feet and cry "pseudoscience" based on their personal opinion as skeptics. While biocentrism is a long way from reaching the status of a mature theory, you don't see pseudoscience claims reported in a dozen-plus RS's; that should be a clue that it is a few clicks beyond mere pseudoscience. -Jordgette [talk] 01:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability of the proponents is not what makes an idea mainstream. Indeed, this is firmly fringe territory. Whether it is pseudoscience or not is immaterial. There needs to be independent sources written about the subject before it is included in Wikipedia. See WP:FRINGE. It hasn't been reported in any major journals. Why is that? jps (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't think biocentrism is fringe under the WP definition. It doesn't differ from mainstream scientific opinion at all in the instrumental sense, i.e., in terms of the results of experiments that have been performed to date. Instead, it's more of an alternative philosophy-of-science framework which seeks to better explain the results of those experiments (although as I mentioned, that work has a long way to go). As for why it hasn't appeared in academic journals, good question. American Scholar comes kind of close. -Jordgette [talk] 03:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm philosophy and religion are not science-based. Proclaiming a new world view and claiming it is "'completely based on science, and is better supported by the scientific evidence, than traditional explanations" is the worst kind of sloppy, huckster, pseudoscience possible. At least people selling dietary supplements on the internet are abusing science to sell something that can actually be tested. And people in the field of philosophy know bullshit when they see it and people in the field of science know they aren't philosophers and don't waste time it. Really - where is there serious engagement with this by people in the relevant fields? Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A comments war unrelated to WP is not what we're here for. But some of you seem naive on the topic. The search for what you call "a new world view" is actually mainstream science in 2016. I recommend that you read Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics, or Google "Problems in Foundational Physics," or read this article[6]. Please be aware that in the 1400s, no contemporary experiment could distinguish between heliocentrism and geocentrism, either. -Jordgette [talk] 03:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jordgette - can you bring any discussion of biocentrism from serious philosophy or science sources or not? Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The American Scholar considered it worthy of publishing, before it was ever picked up by more mainstream sources. I just don't see that happening in cases of "sloppy, huckster, pseudoscience" as you put it. Frankly that's good enough for me. -Jordgette [talk] 04:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that is all you have. OK then. The field of philosophy thanks you for the disrespect. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is also Discover magazine, Wired, MSNBC, and Forbes. Your continued attacking demeanor here is not helping this discussion. -Jordgette [talk] 08:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are peer-reviewed journals. That is the currency of academic discussion, and the academic world of physics and philosophy is where this idea needs to be evaluated for it to not be WP:FRINGE because academy is the epistemic home of such ideas. Everything else is fringe speculation. jps (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I thought you were trying to offer American Scholar as a scholarly serious, but even you consider it just popular media. So there are no scholarly sources that discuss this. Right. Pseudoscience based pseudophilosophy it is then. Jytdog (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The only independent source that seems to discuss this is the Novella blog post, which says it's nonsensical. All of the other references mentioned here seemed to simply be reporting Lanza's claims, without attempting any sort of actual analysis. If it should happen that the notion gains adherents and gets discussed more seriously (like Hollow Earth, perhaps?) – at that point it might be worth an article.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or briefly merge) - from the sparse sourcing this appears to be a barely notable fringe concept. Dressing it up as a topic worthy of an standalone article is hardly worthy of a serious encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fringy as anything, does not even appear to have mainstream notoriety as a fringe concept - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There appears to be little or no actual academic engagement with the topic. The limited sources that exist just report that an otherwise-notable person said the thing, which doesn't mean the thing itself is encyclopedically appropriate. I would ordinarily be OK with a merge, but a substantial merge might lead to the problem repeating itself in the future. (It's probably still worthy of a sentence or two on the Lanza page.) Layzner (Talk) 14:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow and wow again. I cannot believe the series of things said above.
  • Question: Are you seriously trying to say Albert Einstein and Max Planck can publish their famous papers on special relativity, mass-energy equivalence, and blackbody radiation in AdP, but when Lanza publishes a core idea of biocentrism in the same scientific journal (yes, the EXACT SAME physics journal) it’s fring and doesn’t count as science? It’s amazing what is being said to try to eliminate an idea that challenge the beliefs of a few individuals. Wiki editors are not supposed to be thought police (a point someone else here also made).
Clearly a lot of very smart people (including Nobel laureates, members of the National Academy of Science, etc) disagree and have said they like what biocentrism says. Of course, what would they know about “woo” and “pseudoscience”? Of course, I overlooked the fact that a blog by Novella (an “assistant” professor and clinician) is “the only independent source" and he says its “nonsensical.” The archive of this page may become one for the history books.Josophie (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the theory of special relativity had been published in Annalen der Physik but then received as little response from other academics as this so-called theory then it would likewise not be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. It is not the publication of such a theory that determines notability, but the response to it, which in this case is non-existent. When this theory gets recognised as the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time then history books will look back on this discussion as a good defence of the principle that an encyclopedia follows science rather than leading it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR refers to, and I quote, "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." All of the facts in the article are well sourced (please be specific if you disagree), and the ideas represented by those facts have been reported on by numerous reliable sources, as has been endlessly pointed out here, as well as published in AdP, which does not publish useless pseudoscience conjectures (please be specific if you disagree). Also please cite a WP guideline to support your assertion that "it is not the publication of such a theory that determines notability, but the response to it," and let us know how much response to a three-month-old paper you believe is necessary to determine notability. To cite WP:OR in this case is disingenuous at best. No, if the theory gets recognized as the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time, history books will look back on this discussion as certain gatekeeper editors attempting to censor the material for no other reason than they just don't like it. -Jordgette [talk] 00:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I think we get it that academics are appreciated on Wikipedia and that as a group they bring with them a bias to make Wikipedia the encyclopedia of scientific truth.  Other people view this as the religious concept called scientism, where scientism is being used with the definition "faith in science as truth".  I believe that our readers want whatever reliable information is available on a broad range of topics, and don't need Wikipedia truth-masters telling them what they should and should not want to know about. 

    I further append my comments from the first AfD.  We see there the repetition of "fringe fringe fringe" examined as the fallacy of argument by assertion and POV pushing.  We see there that the use of terms for excrement is not new in this context.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • It would be very silly indeed if Wikipedia were to ignore its own WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE rules in favor of an accept-all-comers approach. Fringe is fringe, a Bayesian approach to fringe ideas is that they will typically be excrement, but it is undoubtably true that sometimes fringe is correct. Such stories are heartening, but what is forgotten is that such stories are also rare and WP:CBALL is Wikipedia. The problem is, when an idea is fringe and the normal "powers that be" haven't noticed, we cannot write a neutral article on the subject because we will be left only with laudatory proclamations of the proponents. Wikipedia would then, if we accept such comes, be a vehicle for naked WP:POVPUSHing. We've seen this in the past before our guidelines and polices were as codified as they are today with so-called "creation scientists" and even "modern geocentrists" coming in here and adding obscure content that was wrong (or not even wrong) to little WP:Walled gardens that we've only just begun to dig ourselves out of. The idea that we need WP:FRIND sources is a powerful one. It inoculates Wikipedia against becoming a webhost without any need for fact checking. jps (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what is silly, citing the first Wikilink as WP:RS, which shows that this response is not aware of what I've written.  So I'll repeat, "I believe that our readers want whatever reliable information is available on a broad range of topics..."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know what is silly? Thinking that this article has reliable information in it. jps (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm honestly curious as to what information in the article you dispute. Is it that Lanza makes these claims? That Lanza and Berman have written two books? That there has been criticism? Please indulge me as to the factual inaccuracies and we'll work on fixing those inaccuracies. If it isn't just a case of I don't like it, I'm sure you can quote a sentence from the article that you feel is factually inaccurate. -Jordgette [talk] 02:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In his papers on relativity, Einstein showed that time was relative to the observer. The paper by Podolskiy and Lanza takes this one step further, arguing that the observer actually creates it." Podolskiy and Lanza do no such thing and the connection between temporal relativity and the claims of Podolskiy and Lanza is pure original research and painfully incorrect in fact. jps (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that Podolskiy and Lanza don't make that argument? Or is it just your opinion that the argument is wrong? -Jordgette [talk] 19:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no justification for the claim that Podolskiy and Lanza took time being relative to the observer "one step further". It's not in their paper nor is it true. jps (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that. The "one step further" sentence apparently came from a Lanza quote in the Wired article so it's inappropriate as it was stated. I changed some things and reorganized the paragraph; I think it can still be improved, but see if it meets your satisfaction with regard to factual accuracy. Also if you spot any other inaccuracies, let us know so that we can continue to improve the article. -Jordgette [talk] 23:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there have been no other suggestions of factual inaccuracies, I'm going to go ahead and remove the "factual accuracy disputed" tag from the article. Feel free to add suggestions and we'll continue to improve the article. -Jordgette [talk] 00:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is it textbook, cringeworthy fringe material (absence of scholarly sources engaging it), it does not even seem particularly successful as fringe. Wikipedia really does not need an article to enshrine every time an otherwise well-adjusted person plunges into religious ecstasy from not understanding quantum mechanics. The brief mention on Lanza's page is more than enough. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone who asserts that the article is WP:FRINGE, by the definition on that page, please explain why Wikipedia has articles on the following topics?
As far as I can tell, none of these has been discussed as plausible in the academic literature. Should those articles be deleted as well? This is a serious question, if academic/peer-reviewed publication is to be the qualifying baseline for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is nuance to this question, and I think many of the editors are missing it: WP:FRINGE makes clear that merely being absent from the academic literature does not necessarily disqualify a topic's notability by other RS's. -Jordgette [talk] 03:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about whether a topic has been discussed as plausible in academic literature, but whether it has received significant coverage at all in academic literature, whether as plausible, as implausible or neutral. As regards the topics that you list above there is loads of coverage in academic literature found by these searches: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. In the last case you need to page down a bit to get past the quack journals. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets the GNG, and from independent reliable sources treating it seriously. That the theory is fringe, or that scholarly publications have ignored it has no bearing on whether it should be in WP.  The Steve  08:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The examples just above (Moon landing conspiracy theories, etc.) are so obviously mad conspiracy theories (except 9/11 which is too serious to drag into this discussion), or crackpot fringe theories, that they pose no danger to the sensibilities of anyone who is still on this planet. So they can stay. The Biocentric Universe on the other hand appears to have some plausibility (that is just my summary of all the views expressed here, not my personal opinion), so the thought police will try to remove it in case anyone is seduced by it. Should Wikipedia be censored because the material is thought to be dangerous to established views? It clearly meets the notability criteria (by including mainstream news media) and also, although not a requirement for stuff to be included, from the page view stats it actually seems to be answering questions which Wikipedia readers are asking. Perhaps they are looking at the article for a reasonably balanced opinion and then go away satisfied they can ignore it. Trust our readers! Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Lanza as the pragmatic option.
While there are no academic sources, there is enough garbage in the mainstream press to pass WP:GNG, so a pure delete is not an option (unless WP:IAR). However, the theory itself should be discussed only briefly since anything too long would run against WP:DUEWEIGHT, because of the lack of academic sources. So if kept this should be a permastub. Merging to the main (and lone) proponent is enough. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • weak keep – I was almost convinced by the Fringe arguments, so I read it. And while I was leaning to vote merge, the rules there changed my mind. The notability standard for Fringe, WP:NFRINGE, includes the subsection “Notability versus Acceptance”, which very clearly states that being fringe is not a sufficient reason for deletion or merger. It cites general notability guidelines specifically as what should be applied, and as has been described above, the article very clearly meets WP:GNG. It states further that “a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia,” which contradicts all arguments above claiming that peer-review is needed. Furthermore, I fear that a push to merge, especially if GNG is met, may be an effort to and in danger of violating WP:FRINGEBLP. The Lanza page already mentions the theory, and so should there be a vote to merge or delete, no real changes would need to be made … so the merger argument seems highly redundant to me. It would not be needed to permit content on the idea on the Lanza page. Really, this is about keeping or deleting for me, black and white.2605:8D80:6C0:775D:E830:4605:AB87:7879 (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC) — 2605:8D80:6C0:775D:E830:4605:AB87:7879 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Coverage in academic journals is not required for coverage in Wikipedia. Additionally, the amount of coverage focused on the theory itself, rather than on the author, argues against a merge. Tim Smith (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a WP notability guideline that states what specific kinds of sources are necessary for certain topics? -Jordgette [talk] 22:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N mentions "suitable" sources, and it also says "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". If we have no discussion of X in sources in the field of X, we cannot write an article that complies with NPOV. See also WP:RSCONTEXT and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship in RS. Again, either "biocentric universe" is a significant contribution to philosophy and we look for sources appropriate to that context, or it is pop-culture pseudo-philosophy. You cannot have it both ways. The consensus of this discussion so far is that it is FRINGE nonsense that mainstream discussion in the field doesn't even bother discussing and so deserves little WEIGHT in WP - just a mention in the Lanza article. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so things that should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, such as that supposedly scientific topics should have scientific sources, don't need to be spelt out in written guidelines. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a rough count here, and it looks to me like we have a roughly equivalent number of keeps, deletes, and merge !votes so far. Best of luck to whoever tries to close this, if that is in fact what they choose to do. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the deletes and merges, and taking out the SPAs (we have already had socks blocked on this article) the policy-based consensus is very clear that this article should not exist. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One option, which hasn't apparently been considered much, is to maybe consider whether an article on the book as a book might meet our standards. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biocentric_universe_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1149826562"