This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 00:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Universe concept[edit]

Delete: This article should be deleted according to the "no original research" policy. Please read the article and check the links in it before voting. The recuring defense to keeping it is the large number of sources, but if you read the sources they don't talk about this. For example the NASA link talks about electricity in our atmosphere causing light effects and such, and not about this. Also several facts in the article are obviously wrong, like the fact that craters are caused by lightning bolts instead of meteors, which has direct evidence against. Elfguy 18:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The recuring defense [..] but if you read the sources they don't talk about this" The Electric Universe concept covers many areas, including the idea that electricity plays a much greater role in the universe than generally accpeted. In this respect, the theory is consistent with many existing and accepted theories.

"several facts in the article are obviously wrong" The article does not present this idea as a fact, but as a theory; I am not aware of any evidence that proves that craters can not be created my electical discharges. --Iantresman 20:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elfguy didn't say they couldn't be, and saying "there's no evidence to disprove it" brings you into Flying Spaghetti Monster territory. — ceejayoz ^★ 20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Elfguy said that several facts "are obviously wrong" without any substantiation. And many statements may be falsified by an "ugly fact", but without either, it is just opinion. --Iantresman 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not a believer in the Electric Universe theory, but I suggest that this article remain. I don't mind an having an unreviewed scientific theory present as long as the issue is known on a global scale (The number of Google hits and the number of editors on this article suggest it is) and it is said in the article that the theory is unsupported by the scientific community. My reasoning behind this is the article can still have a historic value even if it no longer has a scientific one. It also appears from the talk page that deletion was discussed before and a consensus was not reached. I hope we are not simply debating the same points we did before. -Solarusdude 19:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Many of the references appear to be wrongly appropriated. Others are unscientific. So the question seems to me to be whether this is a notable social phenomenon (as it's not a scientific theory). I don't think it is but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Dlyons493 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with Solarusdude. In my opinion, the whole Electric Universe thing is crackpot psuedoscience that's been picked up by the oddball fringe, but it does have a significant group of followers (for whatever reason) who are good at making noise. As long as the article clearly states that this is not mainstream science and is widely dismissed and riduculed as lacking merit by most every mainstream physicist, I'm fine with it being here. I do think, however, that the article has gotten badly out of control, and that someone needs to wrestle it back into having some semblance of objectivity. — Cory Maylett

Keep: As the main author of this article, I should mention that it has already gone through the Votes for deletion process, where originality was discussed. See previous Votes for deletion. The article survived the vote. --Iantresman 20:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. — ceejayoz ^★ 20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename "Electric Universe (theory)" - I have heard of it, and don't agree with it, but think it is worthy enough to retain. --MacRusgail 20:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• From the 20 July closing: "The result of the debate was no consensus." Lack of consensus in a previous VfD does not establish a precedent to keep. Saying it "survived the vote" is a stretch not equivalent to "achieved consensus to keep". Barno 20:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It doesn't explain what the electric universe theory is supposed to be about. Electricity is not a new discovery and electrical charge is considered in many theories. The article doesn't identify what's supposed to be missing in the mainstream theories. Peter Grey 21:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per MacRusgail. Other than that, it is very clear to me that this is a very real pseudoscience, and the right course of action is to remove any portions of the article that are OR or unsourced. Bunchofgrapes 23:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable crackpottery. The article is way too long, even if kept. Quale 23:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, it's a total crock, but it's a common one. We should have an article explaining what it is and why it's wrong. --Apyule 01:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This kind of BS should not be part of any self-respecting enyclopedia. Shadow demon 02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, analogously to Flat earth. The Electric Universe stuff is likely pseudoscientific BS, but this article seems at least equally devoted to presenting the critiques and failure of the theory, not cheerleading for the junk science. As with Flat earth, it is possible to cover junk science without being junk science. -- MCB 06:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is exactly the type of article we should be keeping, providing it gives a clear picture of the particular concept, it does not matter two hoots about it being a notable unscientific thingamabob. Has it made enough impact on our culture? I would say yes. Alf ^melmac 20:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not nearly as infamous as Creation science or the Flat earth. Pilatus 01:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And Iowa isn't nearly as famous as California, but we probably want to keep it. If you believe this phenomenon to be non-notable or non-encyclopedic, state your case, but saying X isn't nearly as well-known as very-famous Y or Z doesn't really shed any light on the issue, does it? Bunchofgrapes 04:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I said. We can't include each and every crackpottery on Earth. From what I see, this particular one is very minor, non-notable in the extreme. Pilatus 11:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, I had seen mention of this crackpottery before I ever saw the Wikipedia article. I'm pretty sure it was from this Wired News story. Bunchofgrapes 22:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I'm convinced to retract the vote. Keep this. Pilatus 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's not original research. Whether or not the theory is correct is not grounds for deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 18:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is an extremely relevant and detailed article, if you get rid of this you might as well put up Hollow Earth theory up for the scrap too. Piecraft 14:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, just came here via a reference from the Immanuel Velikovsky article so it's not something brand new. Bryan 01:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, 28 September 2005 - If I wanted a majority point of view I would watch TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.36.80.163 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 September 2005

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.