Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novelty theory

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Voideater (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 22 December 2006 (→[[Novelty theory]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Novelty theory

Novelty theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Impenetrable pseudoscience. No sources to show its notability. Leibniz 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, at least in current state. This kind of content must be properly referenced. Time Cube, whose place here I grudgingly accede to, was at least (mockingly) discussed by MIT and Georgia Tech. But here, there are no references outside of self-published sources and extreme fringe web publications. Bizarre pseudoscience ideas that are publically mocked or derided can be notable. Bizarre pseudoscience ideas that are simply and completely ignored are not. Serpent's Choice 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (very strong keep) Timewave Zero definitely qualifies as pseudoscience or bullcrap, and Terence Mckenna qualifies as a bit out-there, but seeing as how popular and widely read he is makes this deletion suggestion completely baseless. References would be easy to come by, they are just ommited out of laziness (as in most wikipedia articles). I see his books all the time in Borders Books which meanse this passes the Pokemon Test with flying colors. This "theory" is one of his most popular, especially among the type of people who are into 2012 crap (which is a significant number of people). The article does not endorse the theory and efforts have been made to treat it in an NPOV manner. A good argument could perhaps be made to MERGE the article, but a deletion is completely basless (keep in mind, this is coming from someone who thinks Terence Mckenna is full of crap...see the discussion page for the article to see my efforts to make sure it hasn't been treated to lauditorily.) Gene Ray I don't think even has a published book. Lots of people, read Terence Mckenna and take him seriously--albeit few scientists. Before you nominate a article for deletion do a little research to make sure it really is not notable. Terence Mckenna is inarguably influential in certain circles. Full of crap, but definitely influential to many people. Brentt 05:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The popularity of McKenna's writings is documented. His books are sold in Borders, and lots of other places. Plenty of independent sources make mention of him (often to say he's wrong, but that's fine, too). That's all why he has an article, and why it is not up at AFD (as an aside: it needs some work, though!). None of that means that any given idea of his meets the standards for its own article unless independent, reliable sources have addressed the idea. Without anything verifiable, there's nothing we can even merge, although a redirect should remain due to the value as a search term on the topic. Serpent's Choice 05:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this is utter bollocks - but it's popular utter bollocks.SkierRMH 05:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Certainly not science, but interesting and notable as a product of its time and as the work of a fascinating individual whose books are still in print. Wikipedia is not an encylopedia of science, it is a general purpose-encyclopedia, and should default to inclusion rather than exclusion. The article itself seems balanced, and does not present the "theory" as fact. To disagree or disapprove is fine; that's what discussion pages are for. To remove it is completely unnecessary. If for no other reason, the article should be retained for historical and literary reasons. -- DaveSeidel 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um. Keep I guess, as long as we can guarantee that it reminas crystal clear that the theory is twaddle. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep. I can't comment on its scientific validity, but it has been culturally significant. Let the reader decide and the scholar use the page for research, even if the scholar is opposed to McKenna. Alpheus 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough noteriety/interest to make it a reasonable point for look-up. Voideater 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Novelty_theory&oldid=95977986"