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. WP:FRINGE, already covered in similar articles. Black Kite 23:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whole-Earth decompression dynamics[edit]

Whole-Earth decompression dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable fringe speculations with no 3rd party refs Vsmith (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: There should perhaps be a mention in J. Marvin Herndon as well as in Expanding Earth theory. The entry should redirect to one of these sites. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed that. Where has it been featured in the press? --Art Carlson (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's understandable that we can sometimes overlook things.
  1. CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 89, NO. 11, 10 DECEMBER 2005 Feature article written by author of theory and published by notable science magazine.
  2. Neutrino Geophysics: Proceedings of Neutrino Sciences 2005 Featured paper by R. D. Schuiling, Inst. Geosciences, The Netherlands, Abstract.
  3. Best of Science (blog) Is Science About To Change As We Know It? Referenced (along with Growing Earth Theory)
  4. Expanding Earth Theory and Noah Referenced by David Freed At Pondering Confusion web site.
  5. National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources Referenced under GEOLOGY. METEOROLOGY. HYDROLOGY # 015584.
  6. Cornell University Library Teaching Earth Dynamics: What's Wrong with Plate Tectonics Theory? Referenced in Physics Education.
MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same case as with Growing Earth Hypothesis - Deletion or Merging. But it's absurd to create an article on it's own - it gives undue weight to that theory. --D.H (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would only be considered undue weight by peer-reviewed science research standards. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research publication... "and as such Wikipedia does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as peer review, scientific consensus, and academic recognition. Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors. Inclusion or exclusion is therefore not a judgement on the validity, importance or accuracy of a scientific contribution, but simply a reflection of the quality and quantity of responses it received inside and outside the scientific community."
The same users {all with science affiliations}, proposing this deletion or merge, who have also just implemented a unilateral merge of Growing Earth Theory (which had already gained a deletion-debate:Keep consensus decision as worthy of an independent page), in mid merge debate, and removed nearly 80% of its content, leaving only a short dismissive reference to it in Expanding Earth theory, appear to be attempting to impose science research publication standards on encyclopedic content, by acting to remove notable but dissident science related articles. This portends of a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines.
There is nothing absurd about keeping these articles which have gained established notability, because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; "there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page."
MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read exactly the Wikipedia-Guideline: Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors. Inclusion or exclusion is therefore not a judgement on the validity, importance or accuracy of a scientific contribution, but simply a reflection of the quality and quantity of responses it received inside and outside the scientific community.
I think "quality" refers to "inside the scientific community" and "quantity" refers to "outside the scientific community". Now, looking at your links above: Links 1 and 6 are written by the author himself. Link 3 and 4 are normal Webpages, mostly referring to variants of Expanding Earth theory. And Link 5 only mentions the title of the work. The only link which looks like a reputable source is Link 2 - I think that's not enough. --D.H (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the intention is clearly that both "Quality" AND "Quantity" refer to both "inside and outside the scientific community" because a scientific standard alone is not the criteria for inclusion, rather notability. Thus there can be no intention of imposing only a scientific standard on quality, but rather a more broad encyclopedic informational standard, as the guideline states in its opening. In this context, the 5 references cited above make the case for notability because the reputability of the sources must also be considered in broader terms and not only as reputable by science standards. MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelNetzer in response to his list of references up the page a bit: Oh, so that's what you mean by the "science related press". Now I understand why I overlooked it. I thought you were referring to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as relevant for notability in Wikipedia.
  1. Written by the originator of the theory => not independent (Of course, such a reference can and should be used in an article, but it cannot establish notability.)
  2. Not peer-reviewed, but might count as independent and reliable. Upon closer examination, this paper[1] does not refer to "Whole-Earth decompression dynamics" either explicitly or implicitly. It seems to be dealing (on the whole unfavorably) with an independent hypothesis by Herndon. => not relevant
  3. Blogs (especially by anonymous authors) are notoriously unreliable.
  4. An individual essay without "editorial integrity" ("We all have something to say and here is a forum to say it!") => not a reliable source
  5. A long and unannotated list of abstracts which mentions the Current Science paper => nothing new here
  6. Written by the originator of the theory and published on a pre-print server (no editorial review of content) => neither independent nor reliable
Strike out. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelNetzer concerning Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: Nobody is suggesting that we should not have an article on this topic because there is no room for it, or because it would eat up resources that could be better spent elsewhere. The issue is whether the secondary sources exist that we absolutely require in order to write an encyclopedic article without doing original research. They just don't. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Art Carlson: You made a faulty assumption. I meant exactly what I said, that the content "is referenced and featured several times in science related press", which it is. Whether this qualifies for notability by Wikipedia standards, should be seen more favorably than in your entirely dismissive assessment.
  1. Current Science is a notable science publication. Their featuring the article implies an editorial assessment. So though written by the originator, the publication effectively assesses the subject and author by editorial scrutiny of inclusion, and bestows repute on both as worthy of the publication's notability.
  2. The paper is relevant in that it demonstrates professional review of the subject. The entire paper focuses on the a core issue of the subject of our article. Again, one wonders at this attitude of outright and demeaning dismissal, when the article's subject is evidenced to be in the process of gaining professional and popular notability.
  3. The author of the blog is credited and not anonymous. He publishes quality dissertations on science issues. His reference to the subject is not a matter of a reliable professional or academic opinion, but is reliable in the sense of adding a measure of notability to our subject by its mention.
  4. The individual essay is a third party reference of the subject. It is not original research and in itself represents "editorial integrity". Frankly, one must wonder what motivates such utter disregard for these sources as displayed here.
  5. The list demonstrates that the subject is referenced by a reputable professional institute.
  6. Again, the reference... and description of it, is not original research and represents a reputable university's acknowledgment that the subject is worthy of inclusion in its academic references.
But even assuming that the degree of notability is put to question, Wikipedia's broader guidlines do not deem this to automatically justify deletion as a first measure and action. Just the opposite, acutally.
Articles not satisfying notability guidelines: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics is a relatively recent hypothesis coming from academic origins and clearly attaining some measure of visible notability. It entirely qualifies for the broader considerations of inclusion in Wikipedia.
What we are witnessing here is an ongoing dispute within Wikipedia wherein science affiliated editors pounce at every opportunity to remove content based on science research standards and not on informational encyclopedic qualifications. Growing Earth Theory, for example, had ample established notability and already earned a place in Wikipedia. Yet this same group of editors, which now seeks to remove another article contrary to peer-reviewed standards, as a first measure and action, against the broader Wikipedia guidelines, effectively disregard an entire set of encyclopedic considerations, and attempt to limit popular and notable content by removing it, suspiciously due to a science standard bias, as seen in how they've removed Growing Earth Theory, by their unilateral merging of it into a dismissing short representation in Expanding Earth theory.
The proposition to delete this article came before any in-depth review of its notability was undertaken. The demeaning and dismissing attitude demonstrated by this group of science related article-delete supporters, violates good faith and other broader considerations intended to enhance Wikipedia, and not relegate its content into any one group's subjective preferences.
--MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Fringe theories In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
I don't see the article as qualifying based on the references provided in the article or the links discussed above. Vsmith (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless reliable third party sources can be provided per WP:FRINGE. Blueboar (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Merge into Expanding Earth theory Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK to mention theories like this in passing somewhere and to provide an external link to them, but the lack of secondary sources makes it impossible to write encyclopedic content about them, regardless of whether in a devoted article, as a subsection in another article (about the originator or about the scientific version of the topic), or in an article collecting individually unnotable topics. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have enough of a source to say that he propounded the theory. If that primary source is the closest we can find to a reliable source, then just mentioning this on the biography page is as far as the idea should be covered. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fathom the terminology "fringe" of Science and "unsupported speculation" to describe, negatively, this entry! I have read his 2008 book, MAVRICK'S EARTH AND UNIVERSE, and found it useful. It is not likely the EVERY theory starts out as a mere nugget of truth and then gets elaborated as time passes. ME & U offers lots of factual underpinnings while, it seems to me, that vociferous naysayers say only stick with the ACCEPTED theory. By the way naysayers, there are many fully developed theories about the whole Earth's geophysical behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.211.102 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the above anonymous contributor is not familiar with Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, that the proposed deletion is not pursuant to a scientific consensus standard on the theory (though this may play a latent role as an instigator of the proposal), but rather that a consensus on its degree of notability is being put to question.
About the article's notability: It has already been said by several editors that some degree of notability for the article is indeed present, though this may not be enough, by some editors' standards, to justify inclusion. However, as in any good opening statement, the one in WP:Notability sets the broader standard for the guideline, while the more detailed sub-guidelines {as cited here in discussion}, each refer to elements within the broader standard. Yet the manner in which these sub-guidelines are being cited here, appears to ignore the broader standard itself. Thus, it may not be enough to cite any one of the sub-guidelines in order to determine the fate of an article, if by doing so, the broader inclusion standard is being compromised by any sub-guidelines. For a refresher, here is the WP:NOTABILITY opening statement:
"Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." {emphasis mine}
I submit that:
  1. Based on the references cited above, the article does indeed meet the guideline for being "worthy of notice", and that it also meets an accepted subject-specific standard of academic content, as required in the table cited to the right of the opening statement.
  2. Because Google references alone cannot be an ultimate standard for notability, and because the already cited references indicate a reasonable probability that more references may exist outside of the realm of Google, such as in academic sources, print papers and publications, or popular media coverage not yet uploaded to a website which Google can detect (which the search for has not been seriously undertaken and definitely not exhausted), that this satisfies the guidleline (already cited above but deems being repeated here) for Articles not satisfying notability guidelines: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." {emphasis mine}
  3. Being evident that the article's writer may either 1} not be familiar with WP:Verifiability guidelines; or, 2} chose not to entirely comply with this encyclopedic standard; this alone does not justify deletion of the article: "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." {emphasis mine}
About merging with Expanding Earth Theory: The broader recognition of Expanding Earth Theory, which the Wikipedia article covers extensivley, is that of Prof. Geologist Sam Cary's theory, considered to be discredited by scientific consensus. It does not seem proper or possible to compromise this recognition by including within it the necessary details of other theories which are Modern alternatives to plate tectonics, within the EET page itself, as suggested above. It does seem proper, however to utilize such a section in EET for a brief description of such notable alternative theories. However, these should link to an independent page for each theory that meets the standards of inclusion as notable topics (such as Growing Earth Theory and this article). This would allow for the inclusion of details of such theories, needed for informational encyclopedic standards... without compromising the integrity of Expanding Earth Theory, as it has come to be recognized, known and credited.
Based on all these, this article should be kept, not merged. It should also be improved by expanding on necessary details, referencing more sources and cleaning up for neutral point of view tone.
-- MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:ACADEMIC only refers to the "professor test". It is not relevant here. The quality of your other sources has been sufficiently discussed above.
  • You are mistaken. WP:Academics refers to a list of criteria relative to Academics, which include: "An important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources." and "...collective body of work is significant and well-known". All these contribute to the article (coming from an established notable academic) being worthy of notice. (see new reliable sources for notability below) -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are being sloppy here instead of deliberately misleading. What Wikipedia:Notability (academics) actually says is this:
  • "This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics ..." (An academic is a person.)
  • "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, ..."
"4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known."
"5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources."
This policy refers to people, whose ideas and theories may contribute to their notability. Whether any given idea or theory is itself notable is regulated by other policies. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither sloppy nor misleading. Simply establishing that a concept/theory/idea gain academic notability by their own merit, though additionally accompanied by the notability of an academic person whom you refer to. Even the term and topic Academic redirects to the page Academia, which is "...a collective term for the scientific and cultural community engaged in higher education and research." Thus the term academic denotes more than just a person, such as Academic acceleration, Academic art and Academic conference. There exists nothing in the guidelines to entirely limit the use of the word to persons (though this appears to be the more common use}. On the contrary, the inclusion of academic concepts and theories (which must naturally originate from academic persons) indicates that an Academic theory becomes worthy of notice by its own right, even though its author has also achieved academic notability. The opening tag on WP:Notability guidelines states about the page: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". I believe this is the special circumstance we have before us on this topic. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 and 3. I've googled it. You've googled it. The other references (which no doubt exist) obviously cannot be "readily" found. And if they're that hard to find, the "probability" that they will be strong enough able to establish notability is small. (It sounds like you are arguing that we should never delete any article on the grounds of non-notability because we might find some good sources somewhere.)
  • You make another misleading and faulty assumption. I would not support keeping an article that did not show reliable notability for its core idea, or a high probability of achieving it, as this article does. However a wider search of the core mechanism for Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics has yielded new reliable sources indicating widespread notability not yet referenced in the author's biography, nor in this one. (again, see new sources below) -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If those are the best arguments for keeping the article, ... --Art Carlson (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears you are suspiciously (and sarcastically) dismissing a wide range or encyclopedic considerations put forth in the guidelines, and that this may instead act as a boomerang, reflecting upon your personal POV rather than an objective assessment of the particular circumstances of this topic. Still, the best arguments are perhaps yet to be seen. (below). -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability, although perhaps this idea warrants mentioning in Expanding Earth theory.Adrock828 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - New sources for reliable third-party review of the core mechanism for WEDD: As seen in his biography, the author's collective body of work centers around a new concept/theory/idea which has gained much widespread and reliable notability. "He is most noted for deducing the composition of the inner core of Earth as being nickel silicide, not partially crystallized nickel-iron metal. More recently, he has suggested planetocentric nuclear fission reactors as energy sources for the gas giant outer planets and stellar ignition by nuclear fission." Amongst his body of work is the subject of this article which relies on the core mechanism put forth in his collective works. Thus, this article's subject must be seen as part and parcel of the collective body of work, which has received widespread reliable third-party review, as seen in the newfound sources below:

  1. DISCOVER MAGAZINE: "Nuclear Planet" {August 1st, 2002}.
  2. COAST TO COAST AM Radio: Featured guest discussing "Earth, Geophysics & the Solar System" (March 16th, 2006}.
  3. THE WASHINGTON POST: "Is Earth's Core a Nuclear Fission Reactor?" feature by Guy Gugliotta (March 24th, 2003}.
  4. NATURE NEWS: Are there nuclear reactors at Earth's core? (May 15th, 2008)
  5. The Internet ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE: Richard Brook Cathcart "On Initial Aggregation/Ignition of J. M. Herndon’s Earth Georeactor"
  6. SPACE DAILY: "The Nuclear Heart of the Earth" Wayne Smith interview and opinion (March 1st, 2003}.
  7. SCIENCE CENTRAL NEWS: Ann Marie Cunningham's review: "The Core" {March 8th, 2003).
  8. EARTH CHANGE MEDIA Radio: Mitch Battros interviews author on "Radical Theory about Earth's Core" {Tuesday, March 4th, 2008}.
  9. EXPLORER: " Is There Science in This Fiction?" David Brown reviews author's theories' influence on "The Core" film {May, 2008}.

In addition to these, a Google search on the author yields much more coverage in third party blog pundits and references in science related collections of research projects. These all support the case for widespread notability of the author's core concepts, which he has become very well known for.

I am not under the illusion, however, that all these will not be contested as they do not refer to the article's subject directly. But I do make the case for the necessity of these core ideas being intrinsically bound to the subject of this article, and thus establishing a thread of reliable third-party regard to the concept of Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics. If nothing else, these new sources shut the door on the dismissing nature of whether WEDD is worthy of notice. They likewise prove a very high probability that WEDD is included within the widespread regard of the author's body of work... all focusing on the core mechanism for Whole-Earth decompression dynamics. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: Yes, but there already exists an Wikipedia article on Herndon's Georeactor. All your links refer to that theory, but not to "Whole-Earth decompression dynamics". So your argumentation is wrong. --D.H (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My argumentation is not as you allude to, DH, but rather that the notability of Georeactor also lends notability to Whole-Earth decompression dynamics, because Georeactor is the mechanism which drives WEDD. The two concepts are in reality both parts of a more expansive theory of Earth dynamics which the author puts forth. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MichaelNetzer has undertaken a well-motivated search for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in oder to establish the notability of this topic. I note that he has failed, by his own assessment. to turn up any additional sources that "refer to the article's subject directly". --Art Carlson (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another mistake, I'm afraid. I undertook a search for establishing that this topic's notability should be viewed within the broadest considerations of Wikpedia guidelines, and not merely by how much coverage it has received directly. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." (emphasis mine}
I do not believe that I failed at establishing the above, though Hendron's nuclear Earth core may freeze over before the formidable stack of fellows whom you've proven to be, would admit it. With this, I rest my case. Thank you and good cheer. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the georeactor idea is a wholly independent idea from WEDD, with the only common thread being the author. The WEDD driving mechanism is that that Earth was once compressed by gas and is rebounding to a larger radius after the gas was blown off; the georeactor is not involved at all with that concept. Therefore MichaelNetzer's new links do not establish any notability for WEDD. -- Adrock828 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A final clarification in light of this statement. Earth's early compressed gas core composition, according to Hendron, is exactly the source which later developed into the Georeactor he bases his entire set of theories on. They are both at the Earth's (and other planets) core, and are thus intrinsically linked together. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was opened a full week ago. The most vocal contributor, MichaelNetzer, has now rested his case. I also have nothing more to say. Would an admin please come in now, rule on the consensus, and take the corresponding action? It would be nice to have this off the table. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate the effort evidenced by the discussion above and wish to add a few comments. WEDD is wholly separate and distinct from expanding Earth theory, just as it is distinct from plate tectonics theory; it is in fact the unification of the two. Much of the science of the Earth began with the mistaken belief that the Earth as a whole is like an ordinary chondrite meteorite. In the 1970s I began to discover that Earth is instead like an enstatite chondrite meteorite. Since then, I have begun to understand the nature of the Earth, its formation, its dynamics, energy sources, and magnetic field from the perspective of Earth being in the main like an enstatite chondrite meteorite. WEDD is just one part of the picture. I have put all this together in my recently published book "Maverick's Earth and Universe". It will certainly take time for the science community to grasp the full import; funding and careers are at stake. Moreover, many in academia try to bury new ideas, instead of discussing and debating them. All too often young people are being taught science "facts" which might not be facts at all. On the discussion page of WEDD, a teacher made perhaps the best arguments for the page remaining: "Allow the students the chance to be given the choice to make progressive and influential decisions, so that they may make contributions to think and reason and analyze for themselves new scientific concepts." Again, thank each of you for your efforts on behalf of WEDD,Marvin Herndon (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We certainly are interested in your perspective on the articles about you and your ideas. Although your comments were mostly aimed in a different direction, you indirectly confirm my impression from the rest of the discussion. WEDD is a "new idea" that the science community has up till now tended to ignore ("bury") rather than "discussing and debating" it. This confirms that there is a paucity of the "reliable, published secondary sources" on which Wikipedia articles should rely. (See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.) (This is at least true of the scientific sources which are always relevant to a scientific idea. It is possible in some cases - apparently not for WEDD - that popular sources by themselves could make a scientific idea notable, even in the absense of scientific sources.) I also want to help young people learn to "think and reason and analyze for themselves new scientific concepts", and I think Wikipedia is an excellent vehicle toward this end, but only where sufficient sources exist to put a topic into context from a neutral point of view. The day may come that "the science community grasps the full import" of WEDD, but Wikipedia is not the place to either speculate about that day (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) or to try to hasten it (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox). --Art Carlson (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2008 (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.
More