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. Which I think is unfortunate, but there it is. First of all, a goodly number of editors were kind enough to comment. The raw vote total by my count is 13-7 Delete. That's not counting a "Keep only if expanded and modified" - since there's no guarantee that this will happen, that's probably more a Delete than A Keep, but I didn't count it either way. Two of the Keeps were Weak, as was one of the Deletes. Granting that AfD is not a vote, when 20+ editors comment with 2/3 in one camp, that has to be taken into account.

A couple of notes: first, the fact this this person was a crank counts against him, for this reason: his work is not and cannot be the basis for any later research. He's a complete dead end. Thus he's never going to gain any more notability than he already has. So that's a point against him. Second, the article as it stands is mostly copyvio and must go. (You can use short passages for illustrative purposes, not glom whole paragraphs to create the body of an article. This doesn't really bear on this AfD either way, though.

Now on to the arguments. A synopsis of each Keep editor's comments:

'"Seems to pass WP:BIO" (but not further elucidated)
"probably passes the professor test on the basis of having published more material than the average college professor" (but it is not clear if he has, although it's not clear that he hasn't)
"co-author of a ... noted theory"
"Juergens' co-authors to The Velikovsky Affair Alfred de Grazia and Livio Stecchini both appear notable, as does the subject of the Affair, Immanuel Velikovsky." (but de Grazia at least appears to have many other accomplishments, and the notability of the subject of one's work is not really germane)
"[Arguments] that an article on an unconventional scientific theory cannot be notable because the unconventional theory does not find support in the conventional literature is at best tautolgical and at worst insidious censorship" (but this does not really address the issue at hand (notability), nor does this editor's later comments)
"somewhat notable as co-writer of "The Velikovsky Affair".
"If I wanted to find out about this hypothesis or its originator this article would be quite helpful."

As to the Keep arguments, I'll just note that failure to meed WP:BIO does not require an article to be deleted. And WP:PROF is mostly cited for articles about someone's professor. Here's a guy dead 30 years and someone wanted to write a highly researched article about him. He's around halfway to meeting the 100-year test right there.

Basically, it seems that this article hangs on Juergen's co-authorship of The Velikovsky Affair. There's no question in my mind that The Velikovsky Affair is notable. Is Juergens's 1/3 authorship of that book sufficient for his inclusion?

No, not as I see it. The 13-7 supermajority clinches it. (A shame, because I think we ought to have the article, but there you have it.) Herostratus 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Juergens[edit]

This article fails the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). In particular this claimed "researcher" is only published by vanity presses and the author has tried to establish notability with non-notable journals such as Kronos. --ScienceApologist 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:BIO as far as I can tell. His electric universe theory seems pretty unlikely, but that doesn't make him non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to why it passes WP:BIO? By the way the electric universe "theory" as you term it is up for deletion too. --ScienceApologist 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that verifiability is a bigger issue. --Philosophus ^T 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. The article as it stands consists essentially of a quote by one individual, whom I've never heard of, whose importance is never asserted and is without a Wikipedia article himself. — BillC^talk 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable as per nomination. The article is also verging on a copyright violation; if the article is kept, then that big quote and the related footnotes definitely want to be removed. Mike Peel 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if expanded and modified I think this is not terrible, but it has almost no content. It definitely should be labelled as pseudoscience and obscure. Perhaps too obscure to even have its own article. From what I can see here, there is not enough from an article. If it can be reasonably expanded, it is worth keeping, but if not, it has to go.--Filll 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I just reminded someone at Wikipedia Talk: Notability (science), obscurity is never a problem at Wikipedia, but notability may be an issue. --ScienceApologist 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, verifiability is more important than notability. In this case, we only have sources from vanity publishers. --Philosophus ^T 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable pseudoscientist. There are no sources that are not from vanity publishers. --Philosophus ^T 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this guy is (most likely) a crackpot, he probably passes the professor test on the basis of having published more material than the average college professor. Tarinth 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the phone! This guy has published far less than most college professors and he hasn't "published" in the normal sense of peer review. This is a total misapplication of WP:PROF. --ScienceApologist 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Wikipedia:Notability (academics) suggests nothing in the 6 criteria or 10 examples there to support a claim of notability here. — BillC^talk 20:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to reconsider, but it brings up an interesting point: just how much does the average college professor publish? Thus far, the professor test is somewhat subjective since it is defended on the basis of someone's subjective opinion of whether someone publishes more or less. Some concrete information on this would be helpful! Incidentally, WP:BIO does not state that the professor test is based only upon publications made only in peer-reviewed journals, although I can see why one might wish to interpret it that way. Tarinth 20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment It depends on subject, but one can attain tenure & Associate professor rank in most colleges with 3 or 4 articles, if at least 1 is in a major journal. At Ph.D. -granting research universities the requirement is much higher, depending on the university--but the difference is quality, not quantity. In most fields, top universities do not go by quantity. But the test says merely an academic.

But read it again--WP:Prof is a guideline, not policy, and the test as it stands makes no reference to number of papers written, no matter of how high their quality. It requires that they be written about, that is, cited. The frequency again depends on field. The average article gets 1 cite, and there is no WP specification for how many more are needed, but I think a tenurable person at a college would have at least a few articles with more than 5 or 10 cites--in most science fields, including this one. Below that is definitely not notable. There's an active discussion on the criteria, and no consensus whatsoever.

In this case RJ has published no papers whatsoever in the mainstream literature. Therefore he is not a scientist, notable or otherwise, and should not be judged under this test. Zero is certainly not notable, and non peer-reviewed papers are simply not considered RS in this context--especially when ALL of them are not even mainstream non-peer-reviewed. (and no evidence that his work, whatever it may be thought to be, has been written about except in self published souces.)

He has no graduate degree either, only a BS. A BS by itself does not make someone a scientist.-there is no requirement for conventional graduate education, and a BS and notable published peer-reviewed work would certainly count. But he has zero peer-reviewed work in physics or astonomy journals. He is simply not a scientist. If he is to be notable, it must be on other grounds.

The electric universe article was judged non-notable, so he must be judged on the basis of the first paragraph alone, whether he is a notable supporter of Velikovsky. He does not seem to be, having written only one non self-published article on the subject. Therefore a
Strong delete DGG 22:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments: http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html contains an excerpt from SKEPTIC for an article entitled "An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions" which mentions him quite a bit, and a quick search via google also turns up numerous other skeptic sites (as well as the run of the usual ZOMG ACADEMIC CONSPIRACY sites, but I'll discount those). I think it would be hard to argue against his inclusion purely on the basis of WP:BIO. While I think the goal of educating the public about pseudoscience is admirable, erradicating people from the historical record doesn't seem like a good idea to me--I'd rather simply have an accurate portrayal of their lives, including the fact that they are considered pseudoscientists. Tarinth 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears the be non-notable as his major accomplishment is the creation of a mon-notable theory. This article should not be recreated unless notability can be established and the new article written from a neutral point of view. --EMS | Talk 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, Philosophus and EMS. Anville 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nonsense article and a non-notable author.--Anthony.bradbury 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clarify and wikify. This may not be a co-author of a mainstream theory yet, nevertheless, one of a noted theory ... as far as WP:PROF ... I fail to see the problem, and that we don't like what he published does not mean it is not notable. Alf photoman 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the theory "noted"? --ScienceApologist 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in several non-trivial publications, in several books and been laughed at by several hundred professors IMO that is noted. Same thing happened to Zeppelin when he tried to sell his dirigible to the French sciences academy Alf photoman 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have any evidence of this? I will note that the argument that it has "received criticism" is one specifically rejected in WP:SCI. I think your rationale is bordering dangerously on WP:ILIKEIT. --ScienceApologist 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standards for WP:BIO are considerably lower, and widespread criticism would probably account for notability. Tarinth 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I don't see how Mr. Jurgens passes WP:BIO either. The relevant criteria is

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

This is much more restictive than just being mentioned in published works. In addition, without the citations it cannot be determined if these works are "independent of the person". --EMS | Talk 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my firm opinion, he's not a scientist, and is a crackpot, but that doesn't mean that he's not notable. We have articles on many notable crackpots. Judging crackpots on the notability criteria for academics is inappropriate. I've heard of this guy and his theories, and he does seem to have a bit of a cult following, which might make him notable. On the other hand, I'm far too lazy and uninterested to research this further, so I'll leave it up to those who care to either salvage or toss this article. Xtifr _tälk 10:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Juergens' co-authors to The Velikovsky Affair Alfred de Grazia and Livio Stecchini both appear notable, as does the subject of the Affair, Immanuel Velikovsky. Juergens' own theory is verifiable in several journals, and while it may be bogus, he deserves them to be explained reliably --Iantresman 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: User Science Apologist's contention that an article on an unconventional scientific theory cannot be notable because the unconventional theory does not find support in the conventional literature is at best tautolgical and at worst insidious censorship.--feline1 20:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I make that contention exactly? --ScienceApologist 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your proposal for deletion. It looks a bit ridiculous when rephrased in a less weasling fashion, doesn't it? :) --feline1 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should re-read the nomination with an eye toward WP:SCI. The rationale is not "delete this article because the guy doesn't publish in conventional journals". The rationale is that the guy is non-notable, and his only publications are in journals that do not qualify him as notable under WP:SCI. --ScienceApologist 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't regard him as a valid scientist in the first place, so obviously by definition he won't meet the criterea of WP:SCI. You might as well demand that articles about Genesis P-Orridge, Pol Pot or Mickey Mouse measure up to WP:SCI--feline1 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of notability criteria is that articles are subject to all of them simultaneously not just individual ones. If you think WP:SCI isn't the best standard to use for this article, then perhaps you think one of the other notability criteria that this article fulfills. I'll point out that Juergens also fails the WP:PROF test and other ideas listed at WP:BIO. However, the articles you listed are all notable according the relevant notability guidelines. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you regard Juergens' ideas as pseudoscience, and you do not accept notability for pseudoscience: you don't think pseudoscience should be in an encyclopedia, "period", as they say in America. That's your bottom line, isn't it? Whereas, to me that would be censorship, and I think wikipedia should have have a concise mention of the idea in question, and explain that mainstream science rejects it. Otherwise, if some high school student in Alabama tries to look it up in wikipedia, he won't find it and will have to go somewhere that's potentially a lot less objective for his answer.--feline1 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience definitely belongs in any good encyclopedia. For example, astrology, modern geocentrism, creation science, perpetual motion machines, time cube, and Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations all belong in Wikipedia. What doesn't belong are non-notable subjects. By attempting to change the subject as to whether pseudoscience belongs in Wikipedia or not, you are missing the whold point of this AfD. Whether this subject relates to pseudoscience or not is not the issue. In fact, if you read the last point in WP:SCI about arguments not to use you'll see that pseudoscience is not a rationale to be used for deleting an article. I also would thank you not to make false declarations about my agenda. Disabuse yourself of the notion immediately that I am here to excise pseudoscience from this encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Jeurgens and the Electic Universe idea (which I was quite flabberghasted to see had been deleted from wikipedia) are a part of the ongoing legacy of Immanuel Velikovsky, who is certainly a notable pseudoscientist.--feline1 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Velikovsky has an "ongoing legacy" is fairly contentious. He does not receive the media attention he once enjoyed when Sagan was all the rage. Certainly the electric universe and Ralph Jeurgens do not seem to rise to the level of notability in popular culture which is all that is left since (I think) we agree that these subjects defy scientific notability. It may be that Ralph Jeurgens can be mentioned at the Immanuel Velikovsky#"The Velikovsky Affair" section but to insist that he be a biographical subject in his own right or that the Electric Sun/Electric Universe articles be subjects in their own right doesn't seem to have any justification. They just don't seem to be notable enough. --ScienceApologist 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, scientific articles need to have sources in the conventional literature. As this topic does not have sources in conventional literature, and as it does not have enough sources to be presented as a media phenomenon, it should be deleted. --Philosophus ^T 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for wikipedia coverage. The work that forms the basis for his inclusion appears to be vanity press only. Sdedeo (tips) 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you guess Juergens publishes in the vanity press, rather than try to find out? :*Kronos was published by Kronos Press. The staff on the magazine at the time the Juergens' article was published included 10 professors or associate professors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iantresman (talk • contribs) 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, yes, Kronos seems to be more crackpot than vanity. When Egyptologists are reviewing supposedly scientific contributions, it's hard to call the journal something else. In any case, a handfull of fringe publications does not notability make. Sdedeo (tips) 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that when Nature reviews and article for publication, that it asks the chemists on the staff to referee the articles on astronomy, and the astronomers to referee articles on biology? --Iantresman 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete authors who get their work published in and by Kronos only. --Pjacobi 10:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or make dab page linking to "The Velikovsky Affair". Juergens is not notable as a scientist but he is somewhat notable as co-writer of "The Velikovsky Affair". He contributed some 20,000 words - see e.g. here. This means the article needs to be pruned quite a bit: nearly all Juergens' nn pseudoscience info has to go. One line should be sufficient. AvB ÷ talk 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyright violation and non-notable. TimVickers 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or turn into a redirect to The Velikovsky Affair. If his alleged notability stems from his contribution to The Velikovsky Affair, then he should be mentioned there first (he is not), certainly before warranting his own separate article. The "electric sun" crap is non-notable, as was well established in that article's recent AfD (not to mention that it consists of an enormous copyvio quote). HEL 01:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a note ... Can this article, or something like it, be kept, with a note that the Electric sun hypothesis is not accepted as mainstream science? If I wanted to find out about this hypothesis or its originator this article would be quite helpful. (Maybe the sections could be merged with other articles, except that the Electric Universe article is now deleted.) Deletion makes me think of a witch-hunt. Do we really have to drown this stuff entirely, so in the future it will seem not to have existed? Can't we just hang a sign around its neck to indicate that mainstream science either ignores it or holds it in low regard? I am not suggesting that those arguing for deletion have bad intentions, because, as far as I know, those who pursued "witches" had perfectly good intentions. Its just that deletion seems over-the-top - it is less informative and more destructive than keeping the article in some form with some notes to guard against a naive reader thinking the theory is more highly regarded than it actually is. Also, perhaps, a note that Kronos does not meet WP's criteria for scientific notability because it is not a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal. Robin Whittle 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We nominate these sorts of articles for deletion not because we want to blot them out, but because we can't make them both comply with Wikipedia's fundamental policies on verifiability and no original research while also complying with the equally fundamental policy of neutral point of view. Most respectable scientists don't have time to write a critique of pseudotheories like this one, and then publish it in a reputable scientific source. Most reputable scientific sources don't have room for rebuttals of the thousands of individuals who each have their own miraculous theory of everything. On the other hand, most of the individuals in question have copious amounts of time in which to sing the praise of their ideas, and rebuke the unfaithful with yet more praise and misunderstanding. If we were to have acceptable sources for all of these ideas, then we should keep them without hesitation, but as we do not, and are thus unable to craft an article that would not be a disgrace to Wikipedia, we have no choice but to delete them. --Philosophus ^T 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to write a critique of an article to make it conform to NPOV. We don't critique "Jewish beliefs" with "Christian beliefs" to make it NPOV, and we don't critique Stephen Hawkins latest theory on black holes, to make it NPOV. --Iantresman 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what a load of waffle, and from a self-professed sock puppet too! From time to time, people will go to wikipedia and type in "Electric universe" or maybe even "Ralph Jeurgens" (most likely led there by summat on Immanuel Velikovsky). If the wiping-pseudoscience-off-the-face-of-the-interweb brigade get there way, wikipedia will just say "No article with that name exists", when it could quite easily have one or two paragraphs summarizing what the theory is and calmly noting how it is rejected by current mainstream science, all in compliance with the various necessary policies. It just makes for a less informative and useful encyclopedia.--feline1 13:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the problem. We do not believe that we can have an article like that in compliance with policies, as I have described. If you would like to show that we are incorrect, then I would suggest that you create an article like the one you describe, and put it here. It is quite probable that if it were to be respectable while complying with policy, a significant number of these votes would change. That has happened before in these cases. Furthermore, please note that, as I said, I am a sock puppet only on a technicality, since the definition of the term in policy is very different from the meaning that most people understand and expect. With the policy definition, for example, many administrators are sock puppeteers (all bots are sock puppets). --Philosophus ^T 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a cynic might note that since the eradicate-pseudoscience-from-wikipedia brigade seem so deeply versed in what does and doesn't constitute compliance with wikipolicies, they should find it relatively easy to lobotomize any article into compliance... conversely, having checked out the behaviour of some of these characters on wikipedia in recent times (I note Science Apologist was before the arbitration committee not so long ago...), I'd be reluctant to spend the time editing something only to have it all just erased by that lot. This is why their conduct can be disruptive: notwithstanding their desire to censor certain types of information, it puts people off contributing, cos they don't want to become involved in edit wars with zealots /sighs/--feline1 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Feline1's comments are bordering very close on getting too personal and he seems to be accusing me of forming a cabal. I suggest he try to resolve his issues at dispute resolution rather than trying to defame the messengers. --ScienceApologist 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auch look, I really have no desire to get into a personal confrontation about this. To be honest though: I feel that you yourself make things personal, because of your self-professed antipathy to what you deem "pseudoscience". When other editors read your comments, despite them being packed full of diligent references to various wikipolicies, it is all too easy to think "here is a guy with an agenda". It tends to undermine your credibility - all those careful wiki policy references begin to come across like carefully-researched excuses for you to be able to get your own way: i.e. eradicating pseudoscience. --feline1 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be accusing me now of wikilawyering. And I am not too fond of you ascribing an agenda to me. As I've said before, I have no problem with verifiable articles on notable pseudoscience being included in Wikipedia. However, when articles are written that are unverifiable or not notable, I don't think they belong here. In the future, please assume good faith about those whom you oppose. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL wikilawyering, you know all the tricks don't you! LOL Anyways but I *did* assume good faith, until I started reading your user/talk pages, your edit history and your arbitration history! That's when I got suspicious :-D LOL. Please also see my reply to your comment above^^ Best wishes--feline1 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that your laughter is belying a bit of discomfort with being called out for doing shoddy research into my edit history and arbitration history. Vague ideas and suspicions are never a good thing to base community relations on. You could have asked me about what my opinions were instead of arrogantly assuming that you obviously knew. --ScienceApologist 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that nearly all of these articles are neither verifiable or notable. I don't consider notability to be an important point of Wikipedia policy, and instead think that verifiability and neutral point of view obviate the need for notability restrictions in most cases, including these. For a response to your reply to my last comment, I will agree that we are deeply versed in Wikipedia policy, and know enough to understand that we cannot create articles of this sort that comply with the policy. There have been attempts by some of us to change the policy in the past to allow for proper coverage of topics like these, but they haven't been accepted, in part because they would require changes in the non-negotiable fundamentals of Wikipedia. As for ScienceApologist being before the Arbitration committee recently, that is of little detriment to his character: requests for arbitration against decent editors are often created by pseudoscientist supporters, who often then find that the process backfires. I am currently a party in arbitration as well, for example, by my own choice. Finally, there is no cabal (though there are the Einstein's Witnesses). --Philosophus ^T 04:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually, I'm back now, since it seems that dispute resolution has changed enough that it is possible to defeat pseudoscientific points of view, thanks especially to the recent work of the Arbitration Committee" - you crack me up, you do! Can't you go and do something more useful with your time, like go down to the Grand Canyon and tell them how old it is? :)--feline1 11:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, without prejudice. Not notable as a scientist, and much of the article seems to be a copyright violation. Involvement in the Velikovsky Affair seems to come close to notability. Cardamon 09:52, 13 January 2007 (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.