Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weak dematerialization (Shroud of Turin)

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 delete. JForget 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak dematerialization (Shroud of Turin)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability required of fringe theories that the idea receive outside notice. The only notice this idea has received is among proponents. It is so obscure that it is flying under the radar sensitivity of the Shroud of Turin controversies. The sources for this article are all soapboxing, and certainly are not the independent, reliable, secondary sources we need to verify notability. The person proposing the "theory" isn't even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article author claimed a large number of sources as helping to establish notability, but it seems most of them are really just sources he thinks support the theory as true, without actually mentioning it. Only one of the sources looks as if it covers the subject in some detail, but it's hard to tell because the article is written so badly that I have no idea what the subject is actually supposed to be. All the uncertainties make my !delete vote weak as a matter of policy interpretation. But as a matter of maintaining the quality of this encyclopedia I feel very strongly that the article should be deleted because its author is apparently unable to present the subject comprehensibly and it's very unlikely that anybody else will be sufficiently interested. Hans Adler 12:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per talk page, looks like a bad-faith nomination. I think WP:POINTing takes place here to affirm the sole notion on Shroud, while there is no scientific consensus on image origin as showed in the Shroud of Turin. I’ve provided some critical insight, but not a single scientific source, indicating WD’s flaws, has been provided by opponents . The whole lynching-like action seems to be a shifting to some obscure view of the image origin, not currently tested. The article demonstrates that the theory has a following within the scientific community as per alternative theoretical formulations, passed in Arbcom’s pseudoscience request. Brand[t] 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FRINGE. And, I think, WP:FLAT is also very relevant.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any theory on TS image origin can not be labelled as 'fringe' until final confirmation on TS, this a bad faith extension I think. And the theory was not defined as 'fringe' at Fringe theories noticeboard either, the source concerns there were adressed. Secondly, unlike WP:FLAT, the article does not present the theory as the only possible one and shows limitations. Brand[t] 15:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shortly, the article tries to make a scientific-looking analysis based on the supposed "fact" of Jesus resurrection, for which no evidence is given. Barvinok (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, let’s get it plain. Per WP:FRINGE, fringe ideas depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. What is the prevailing or mainstream view in sindonology on image origin? Brand[t] 18:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe mainstream scientific view is that the relic was created in the Middle Ages and the image was artificially produced. Asking for a "mainstream sindonology " view may presuppose faith in miracles and rejection of negative scientific evidence. Edison (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should rewrite Turin Shroud then :) Sindonology does not reject any scientific evidence, it weighs it against other possibilities. Brand[t] 08:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. There seems to be a lot of original research in that article and a lot of fringe views getting too much weight. I am glad you agree. Hans Adler 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unintentionally hilarious POV fork of the Shroud of Turin article. However, I will remember the wonderful phrase "the pion bonding holding the nucleons together was overcome by energy input into the body" with some fondness, since we all need more humor in our lives. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE. Edison (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I and others have made several attempts to convince the article creator (Brandmeister) to produce some reliable third party references. I'm still not sure Brandmesiter understands the request. The chance that the article will ever see anything of the kind is minimal. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notice from sources outside of Shroud folks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE and lack of reliable sources. At best, the main thrust of this article deserves a few lines in Shroud of Turin#Miraculous formation. There's also the problem that most of the article is padded by "concurring hypotheses" which are in fact unrelated. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please put this thing out of it's misery by weakly dematerializing it ASAP. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything relevant to image formation on the Shroud of Turin. -RobertMel (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the mainstream scientific view is that the relic was created in the Middle Ages and the image was artificially produced, why there is nothing definite at the Shroud of Turin? The actual humour is that a small group of voters wikilawyers here after STURP’s 1981 report, which gave no conclusive results and found no reliable evidences of forgery. Template:Death of Jesus has a separate string on Hypotheses. Apart from WP:FRINGE, I think there is a misreading of the aforementioned WP:POVFORK too, which states in particular: even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork and further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term. I have not expected AfD nomination especially after the article scored 4,200 hits as DYK on March 6. Brand[t] 07:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly dematerialize... er... Delete. Non-notable fringe theory without sufficient coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. *** Crotalus *** 15:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an expert profiled by Wikipedia, philosopher Phillip H. Wiebe, who supports weak dematerialization based on cutting edge developments in physics. He expounds on his belief in weak dematerialization as the process of image formation on the Shroud in his book God and Other Spirits published by Oxford University Press in 2004. It would be a great disservice to deprive readers of Wikipedia of a theory deemed significant enough to be published by Oxford University. Diane Stranz (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Diane Stranz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Why would we want to be citing a philosopher on a question of physics? Many of the worst pseudoscientific gaffes take place when academics venture outside their areas of expertise. *** Crotalus *** 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "cutting edge developments in physics" that could be used to substantiate any of the processes proposed in the article. But even if (unlikely) they existed, it does not matter, as the mainstream scientific consensus is against it anyway. --Barvinok (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and just mention that it exists as "some theory" on the shroud page, but no more than a few sentences. It is not a high quality article and not worth a page on its own. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2010 (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.