Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. I counted 18 votes to delete, 7 votes to keep, and 2 neutrals. I also discounted the anonymous vote. 18/25 is 72%, but the real kicker is that nobody voting keep (nor anyone contributing to the article) has been able to cite reliable sources. As such, by definition this is original research and is in violation of Wikipedia's verification policy. However, I'll try my best not to be surprised/offended when/if this appears at WP:DRV. Regardless, I'm leavingt the talk pages there for posterity.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Aetherometry
Previous AFD

Nominated by Januszkarp 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC); reason follows:

Hi, this is Janusz Karpinski. I decided to start this voting for deletion because of how having the aetherometry entry makes Wikipedia look bad. I think the entry should be deleted until literature about aetherometry appears in mainstream scientific publications, or until aetherometry becomes popular and known and can be found in reliable outside descriptions. Right now it just lowers Wikipedia reputation, at least in my surround.

I give three reason why aetherometry entry should be deleted:


 * 1. Serious not solvable problems with Undue Weight policy
 * 2. Serious not solvable problems with Verifiability policy
 * 3. Because of above not solvable problems, what is done with the entry causes impoliteness, unscientific behaviour from Wikipedia administrators, is unable to get out of same spot ( like wheels turning on ice), and gives bad impression to public.

I will now elaborate these reasons a little.

Ad 1. The Undue Weight policy says:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

What I see about the situation of aetherometry is: it has some students and supporters which make very small minority of general population. Outside of this, some neo-Reichian people and some cold-fusion people have said something about it and nobody else. It is not part of culture or counterculture. Nobody in scientific community made an examination or published about it, so none at all majority view is documented. So only thing Wikipedia can say about "viewpoint in the majority" on subject of aetherometry is that there is not any that can be substantiated. Everything else in article would have to be viewpoint of very small minority. How is it possible not to give undue weight to minority viewpoint? You would have to repeat the one sentence about the not being any majority view thousands of times before the policy would let you write even one sentence saying anything about minority view. That's why there is the third point: if the viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Aetherometry has a viewpoint held by very small minority, and which does not have a majority viewpoint.

Ad 2. The aetherometry.com website is very large and contains many writings by creators of aetherometry. Many one has to pay for. What I saw uses new language and new way of thinking and is very difficult. I think it is impossible to verify without much understanding of some of these writings whether what is written in the Wikipedia aetherometry entry is accurate portrayal or somebody's interpretation, since there is not an accepted interpretation of aetherometry with which the entry can be compared. It is also impossible to sincerely and scientifically put aetherometry in category as science or not science. I see that many Wikipedia administrators want to say aetherometry is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience means it has been alleged by scientific community to violate the scientific method. Scientific method has to do with how you collect empirical evidence and how you make it the basis for theory. Without studying aetherometry materials and even maybe reproducing experiments it is not possible sincerely and scientifically to evaluate how aetherometry does this, and it has not been alleged anywhere by scientific community. Violation of scientific method may be suspicion that these administrators have, and it may be correct suspicion, but it is just opinion and cannot be verified at this time, because of absence of supporting literature. Some administrators say that aetherometry has been around for 5 years and nobody in mainstream science got interested means it is pseudoscience. But this is also only suspicion, not verifiable. Aetherometry is big and does have new language and mainstream science may see no reason to make effort. Nobody pays mainstream science to make such effort, except in military cases and then it is not always publicized. So I am sorry, but silence of mainstream science is not scientific verification that aetherometry is not science. Wikipedia with its own means cannot verify that aetherometry is science or is not science, and no other means exist.

Ad 3. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in his Personal Appeal writes: "Thousands of people, all over the world, from all cultures, working together in harmony to freely share clear, factual, unbiased informationÉ". This is very different from what work on the aetherometry entry looks to the world. Work on this entry is full of impoliteness, bitterness, non-factualness and opinion. This is on all sides, and is not fault of those sides. It is fault of not solvable problems with undue weight and unverifiability. As a result, the discussions make Wikipedia administrators look as if more interested in sticking opinion-based label on aetherometry than in learning what aetherometry is. This is a bad thing in encyclopedia, because it does not provide for the public a leadership and example of love of knowledge. When public looks at aetherometry entry, the not solvable problems make Wikipedia administrators look unprofessional, not scientific, not interested in knowledge, and just wanting to force into Wikipedia their own opinion, even when unverified. For what have this? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The following from Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators may apply to this AFD. "For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Emphasis added. New User:Januszkarp's contributions began January 13 and have been on no other topic than the deletion of the Aetherometry article. GangofOne 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply. Hi, this is Janusz. I hope contributions are evaluated on such criteria as truth, honesty, accuracy, strongness of argument, not previous edits.  I will be happy to make many edits in future, if I see hope that Wikipedia will have serious, honest attitude to verifiability and scientific accuracy .  It does not have such attitude now, and without it I will certainly not participate.  Sincerely, Janusz.  Januszkarp 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - well, because currently we're one of the top search results when you search for it on google, and we can actually impart some unbiased information. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Natalinasmpf!  You voted so fast!  Did you read my reasons?  Could you say a little about how you can impart unbiased information when no literature is available?  From where will unbiased verifiable information be obtained?  Januszkarp 20:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently we have tons of rebuttals as it is. The aetherometrists in fact, (as of the last afd), want this deleted, because it disparages their theory. We even classify it as pseudophysics (by cat'ing it as aether theories)...undue weight can be resolved by cutting down on the material. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 05:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, pardon if I am direct, but I think perhaps you are so wanting to hurt aetherometrists that you forget responsibility as encyclopedia administrator. It is not place of encyclopedia administrators to rebut scientific theory, but only to quote reputable scientific sources, if they exist, that rebut theory on credible scientific basis.  Otherwise, it really is simply disparagement.  Sorry I have to say this although I am not prejudiced for aetherometry.  Disparagement has no place in encyclopedia.  To call theory pseudoscience or pseudophysics without quoting respectable sources examining it through credible scientific process is just using power of administrator for own bias.  I hope this is not your purpose. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 23:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * More to the point, we have policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and (absent from this article, I note) a recommendation to WP:CITE. I can't find a policy of WP:TGH (if that's what "top Google hit" would be aliased to); as far as I can tell, being the top Google hit is not a grounds either for inclusion or deletion. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 22:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Natalinasmpf: Even from half way around the world, I'm sure you can still smell my disgust with WMC. But can you believe it, he and I finnaly agree on something.  Although I still taint a few things with my sarcasm once and awhile, I am now being sober in that the reasons for both sides to delete Aetherometry from Wikipedia, are mutually beneficial.


 * Wikipedia can do far better things with its time than fight with Aetherometry.
 * Aetherometry can do far better things with its time than fight with Wikipedia.


 * I've commented to jossi, that cutting Aetherometry loose for now, would at least give Wikipedia a chance to re-set it calibrations on Varification, Peer-Review, Citation and Reference without Aetherometry screaming in its face about the self-archival system used by the Correas as a necessary building block for scientist, one even ISI is now having to re-consider in its value metric. Until such time, the existence of Aetherometry in Wikipedia is simply and open sore to be picked at by everyone not as familiar as you, with the importance of reference when using such an emotionally evocative word such a pseudo.  Sincerely I ask you, please re-consider your vote. TTLightningRod 06:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:NOR, because until we can verify both pro and anti cases from reliable sources (which in the case of a supposedly scientific concept means peer-reviewed scientific journals) it can't be anything else, can it? I see no evidence that anyone other than the Correa camp have accepted that this is anything other than complete bollocks.  It also appears from the various publications by the Correa camp that Wikipedia is not only the main independent publisher of this theory, it is also the main independent publisher for criticism of it.  That is not what Wikipedia is for. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 20:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is not original research, it reports on it from published sources. It terms of balance, there are articles on all the Physics topics and theories that are inconsistant with this one.  This is one page.  Wikipedia does say all the other things many thousands of times more.  The article does need some more cleaning up.  This clean up may be very deep.  But that is still different to just deleting the topic.Obina 23:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't discount the above at all, but as a simple matter of fact the existence of numerous articles on well-proven concepts does not mean we are bound to document one which is not absent it passing WP:V and WP:RS; after all, the fact that every article which touches on the subject accepts that gravity exists does not mean I should be allowed to create a page based on the theory that "Earth sucks". Please refer me to the reliable sources for the concept of Aetherometry - specifically the names of those reputable peer-reviewed journals in which this notionally scientific concept has been discussed.  Thanks, Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, I read some of the aetherometry web page and these people are clearly nuts. They may have gone nuts because they have discovered something important and no-one else will acknowledge it.  Or they may just be nuts.  Their stuff about the mysteriously charging capacitor seems to be explained by current scientific knowledge, though.  They would be much better advised to write within the canons of scientific method and avoid hysterical ad hominem rantings against people they feel have slighted them. John Cooper - unsigned comment by 


 * Comment I mean these people claim to have discovered that Einstein was wrong and global warming is a hoax! Hello!  Matthew Leeming - unsigned comment also by 


 * The point is, nuts or not, we should not include it until they've finally got it published by a reputable journal. Right now not even the April 1 editions look like touching this one. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 00:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and currently this article is being used to promote Aetherometry and give it, as Janusz says, undue weight. Also apply Verifiability and Reliable sources: have the article's "facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments ... already been published by a reputable publisher? No. Tearlach 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Natalinasmpf. --Terence Ong 02:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete For those that have read articles published in science papers; there are many proposing reinterpretations and even unconventional concepts. Wikipedia can not start including every unconventional theories. What Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) is proposing is ridiculous, Wikipedias task is not to 'expose' every unconventional theories. Articles existances can not be justified on the basis that it will balance what there is already. Beside, the last few days when I've read about the subject, I haven't really seen counter answers to the theory, which meens that the theory is not enough known to be criticized. In fact, the citation index, or digital periodicals includes how many times papers have been cited, and this is a good indication of the notability of papers. If we can not criticize papers by using the critics of those in the field, it simply means, that the subject is not notable enought. Fad (ix) 22:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Until the concept is published in reputable peer-reviewed  journals, followed by criticism and informed debate in thsoe journals, then this article can only be either POV, original research or unverifiable.  I cannot think of any way of covering the subject encyclopaedically without violating at least one of those immutable wikilaws. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral. I continue to believe, as I did in the first AFD, that this is significant enough as a pseudoscience to warrent a wikipedia article.  My basic reasoning for believing so can be read here.  In terms of some of the specific criticism rendered here, I would reply that for describing the theory itself there is no more reliable source then the published volumes of its main proponents.  I would also object to the standard that describing psuedoscience requires peer review scientific literature.  Obviously if something is unfit for publication, it will never be discussed and debated in the peer review context.  It is as silly as asking for papers debating the merits of a flat Earth or chiromancy.  However, I agree, there is a response problem.  How does one deal with a field where there isn't a published literature of criticisms?  Well, I think we can all pretty much agree how an encyclopedia article on this subject ought to read, roughly: Aetherometry is a theory advanced by X that claims Y.  It has no significant support in the scientific community as verified by its failure to appear in abstract database Z.  Some specific claims are A, B, C; as acknowledged by aetherometry's advocates these conflict with established scientific principles D, E, F.  I don't really see any reason to go inventing counter-arguments since the supporters themselves admit to requiring changes to the establised views.  Having said all of that, I'm not actually going to vote keep, as I have no intention of personally contributing to the further development of this article.  Since it is a topic that has generated such acrimony, I prefer to defer to those involved as to whether they want to see the continued existence of this article.  Dragons flight 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Stifle 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Cut this anchor loose. Either way, it's going to drag Wikipedia down.  Wikipedia can not police the world of bad ideas as the Nat fancies, and if it's worse than a dumb theory, "a con", than I'd think some "victims" would have surfaced by now.  Please argue this first reason up or down.


 * Second reason to dump it from Wikipedia is; If Aetherometry is EVER uncovered to contain ANY merit, Wikipedia treatment of the material to-date is a serious black mark (especially considering the two books written already by the targets of this extraordinary Wikipedia bias). I mean think for just a moment, the shear audacity of filling ISBN numbers by the very perpetrators of the "CON". To write letters to CNN after Jimbo made a defense of Wikipedia treatment of the Seigenthaler affair.


 * So like I said, either way, dump it. Delete any and all history you can from worldwide wiki memory banks. Or if not, open up an article to expose one of the most complex pseudoscientific frauds ever attempted by a few pseudoscientific Canadians. Ya, go get those Wikipedia libelers Nat, you brilliant Legal Eagle. TTLightningRod 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Pseudoscience or not, the article provides a good and NPOV background. If this article goes, 10,000 articles in WP will need to go as well. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the reason I voted delete is not because of bias, but because the theory appears never to have been published in any reputable peer-reviewed journals. That makes it impossible to verify the article without violating WP:NPOV, since the only reliable sources are the authors themselves.  Oh, plus I think it's complete bollocks, but that is just a personal view. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 23:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Some of the discussion here is similar to that for the Expansion theory AfD. See Articles for deletion/Expansion theory(2) andArticles for deletion/Expansion theory It was deleted twice. I think pages about topics that are complete bollocks have some function on Wikipedia. They allow editors to hone their arguments on talk and AfD pages. They give readers a thorough sense of the reliability of the arguments for a topic that may otherwise be little criticized, as User:Natalinasmpf points out above. In other words, the article subject may be complete bollocks, but the article need not be. On the other hand, User:Januszkarp is correct that their presence gives some people a negative impression of Wikipedia, may promulgate ill feeling, and siphons energy away from work on articles on good and useful topics. I feel most badly about the last point. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment on Comment: In the spirit of Bastiat, I challenge your mild comment by taking it to the absurd extremes awaiting you on either side of the fence upon which you sit.


 * "Keep" the bollocks, and get to work quick on the New Article documenting how it's one of the most complex pseudoscience frauds ever attempted by a couple of pseudoscientests from Canada. Forget Canada, it's actually one of the most complex pseudoscience aether theories of all the world. This new article will be a smash hit for the soon to be faltering popularity of Wikipedia, I guarantee.  A most sneaky con, because the perps had been cooking it up for twenty years before they so cleverly pooped it into the Wikipedia.  Yes, tens of thousands of carefully crafted pages were used to build the con, that is, before they executed the masterful stoke of offering the bait-n-switch free stuff to Wikipedia.  Climbing to the top of the Google charts, where 18 actual people were actually swindled out of 23 dollars and 87 cents Canadian, each!  Yes, the greatest con, NOT because of its success as a money swindle, but because so few people actually lost money buying the junk science papers and the perps didn't even recover their cost in staples.  The most elaborate con ever, and no one would come forward to persecute the dastardly confidence tricksters after they went to all that trouble.


 * I'm talking about a darn Hollywood Blockbuster of a story here! A tragic drama of a few people dedicating tens of thousands of hours to build up a pile of bullcappy, and they never once took the time to read how "the scientific method" would have the power to expose their grand conspiracy, instantly.


 * I'm so serious about this, there isn't an ounce of real sarcasm in my words above. Bastiat would be very disappointed in me.


 * Or "Delete" because anymore bollocks in this here Wikipedia is just too much for the servers to handle. Jimbo will be making more desperate donation drives so that he can keep the servers running.  "Protecting the masses from bollocks is my dedication in life.  Please send money this afternoon or the Wikipedia to save the world from bollocks, might suffer from increasing instances of ISP shutdown."


 * Or "Delete" for that other reason I spoke of. Because the fence post is about to jamb up the kester of this here otherwise fine establishment, because it can't get a grip on why it's reputation is really starting to stink. TTLightningRod 03:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia is not your drama-filled teen Livejournal, folks. Some of you need to step away from the computer a while, take a few deep, calming breaths, put down the scissors and stop caring about the internet so damn much. - Randwicked Alex B 06:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Randwicked:  I looked, but I couldn't find any other comments of yours in the talk page other than this one: "Oh God. This is the funniest thing ever..." - Randwicked 07:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)  As for the article space, how many times did you re-insert the phrase Pseudoscience there?  You were just joking right?  Jokes on me, right?.  Goodness, how you revealed me with all this egg on my face for caring "so damn much". TTLightningRod 13:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, so I tried to revert to consensus a few times, then lost interest when I realised how Sisyphean that was. And yes, I thought the ginormous persecution complex the authors of that website/book have was funny. Now I feel kind of guilty about laughing; I don't think they can help it. Chill and you'll live longer, Randwicked Alex B 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What's sisyphean, is the idea that Wikipeda will even stick to its own rules... CalvinBall I think you call it.  Right?  What's ginormous, is the self-righteous ego of that uniformed consensus you were "defended".  Are you sure you weren't just a little swept away by some group-think there?  Or...  are you sure you weren't trying to uphold some group-think there?  You shouldn't feel guilty about laughing, a good sense of humor is a great thing.  Mockery, on the other hand, is shameful.  But what will really help you live longer, is an open mind.  I'll have plenty of time to chill when I'm dead, thank you.  Passion for honesty, and the scientific method is nothing I'm ashamed of. TTLightningRod 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Randwicked, this is Janusz. You say internet is not so serious and to be much cared about.  I often hear this view.  But you know, many children who want knowledge spend now much time on internet trying to learn, and this is very serious and to be cared about.  When my son sees website like aetherometry.com, this is not so serious because he knows this is just point of view and if he has interest he can ask more questions and after while form own judgement.  But when he goes to Wikipedia, he wants to take it as model of making of real knowledge.  When Wikipedia makes judgement by consensus, what kind of consensus is this?  There are very different kinds of consensus.  There is consensus of individuals who each judge carefully and in most serious way, from own conscience, own love of truth and own love of justice.  This is noble consensus.  But there is also consensus of cattle, where people join because of authority of leader or fear.  And worse, there is consensus of pogrom, where whole villages by consensus start killing Jews and each individual follows own sadism under excuse that everybody else did the same.  These kinds are shameful consensus.  When my son sees judgements such as pseudoscience in Wikipedia articles by consensus, I cannot lie and tell him consensus is of noble kind, because I know in my heart that people executing judgement, such as you, did not do it in noble way.  I am not saying you are not noble, but these actions in Wikipedia are not noble, and when they influence children and teach them to judge without seriousness and conscience, it is serious and not responsible.  I am sorry if I am too direct.  Sincerely, Janusz.  Januszkarp 17:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Just zis Guy, you know?. -- MayerG 20:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I fully understand Januszkarp's exasperation over the long list of items and discussions that are unverified and do not follow WP:V or WP:CITE. That was the reason I started a discussion at Talk:Aetherometry. However, the timing of this AfD and this comment in Ad 2: "Some administrators say that aetherometry has been around for 5 years and nobody in mainstream science got interested means it is pseudoscience. But this is also only suspicion, not verifiable." seems to indicate you are unhappy with this effort (I am not sure). Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that obviously all consensus in that discussion needs to be based on verifiable references, nothing was meant to be based on suspicions. Our efforts at WP depend on insisting on that principal, as you correctly point out. What seems to have stirred part of your critique must have been my sentence that a theory can be called "pseudoscience", when it purports to be scientific but "(c) the proponents never seriously tried to have it evaluated" (to quote myself). If this is proven in the bounds of WP:CITE and WP:V, I contend one can call this theory "pseudoscience". This is to close the "loophole" of a theory avoiding exposure to the scientific community so no "scientific verification that this theory is not science" will ever exist. Now, I might be wrong with my definition (and you can change my mind with a good reference), but there is nothing here that is not supposed to be verifiable. To conclude my rambling, we can write a meaningful article even on such a contentious theory, when we do our homework regarding verifiability! It is just more work digging out the sources compared to a simple Google search... I guess, since I looked at this for only four days, I'm neutral on this AfD. Awolf002 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is Janusz. You taught me very nice new word, "exasperation".  Thank you.


 * The sentence that you quote from my AfD reasons, that if aetherometry has been public for 5 years and nobody got interested, then it is pseudoscience, was referring not to you but to Pjacobi, who said this in response to me on his talk page. This seems actually complement of your argument, which is that if aetherometry did not try to be evaluated, then it is pseudoscience.  So in short, by putting your two arguments together, if nobody evaluated aetherometry because either aetherometry was not interested to be evaluated or nobody was interested to evaluate it, then it is pseudoscience, i.e. it violates requirement, essential to scientific method, of proper iterations and interleavings of experiments, quantifications, hypotheses, and predictions.  I am sorry, and I hope I dont offend you, but this logic makes me think of Polish word "kretactwo" (written with little hook under "e"), that means twisting, rotating in order to bypass truth.  It is creating untruth sideways, not even an honest lie, but a sideways lie.  I dont mean that you personally are "kretacz" - twister - but you are not disagreeing to be involved in Wikipedia "kretactwo".  I will explain by giving example why I am exasperated.  Look at aetherometry history in past few days.  What percent of activity is reverting to category "Pseudoscience"?  Every day there is reverting several times, except special treatment of Natalinasmpf, who is "insider".  And who does reverting?  Who is Randwicked, Constantine Evans, Rlove, No Guru, Batmanand, A bit iffy, TestPilot, Calton, El C, Ducharris, Salsb?  Why do they revert?  Do they know something about relationship of experiment to theory in aetherometry, or about reputable literature discussing this relationship?  If they know, why do they not tell, discuss?  I think they know as little as I.  So why do they revert, on what basis?  Why does Wikipedia administration permit them to do this without basis, and not discipline them for unverifiable claims?  To the contrary, many Wikipedia administrators, as you know, do same, and perhaps some of names I mentioned are administrators also!


 * But this is not all. This reversion, every day several times, is now going on many months.  It is just matter of fact, as if erasing claim that aetherometry is pseudoscience is like saying that sun rises in west, a vandalism or craziness.  And all this time there is not even smallest verifiable evidence that aetherometry is contrary to scientific method!  And all these months administrators and almost-administrators come in and make great effort at "kretactwo", at twisting and rotating truth, in order to make category "Pseudoscience" look legitimate for aetherometry.  So FIRST they put category in and make sure it stays in, by constant reverting, and THEN they try to bake a justification!  Does Wikipedia policy really permit this?  And now you join with your complement to Pjacobi, and Philosophus joins with his trap questions, and maybe a new generation will soon join also and have fresh, better ideas for this "kretactwo".  For what all this?  To hurt the aetherometrists, as Natalinasmpf said?  In my opinion, it is hurting a lot more yourself, Wikipedia, and the readers of Wikipedia that trust it for education.  It is similar to corrupt polish politics, which most of all hurts country and its people, and gives example to young generation of future corrupt politicians.  I hope you do not interpret this as personal offense and understand better now my exasperation.  I think in case of Wikipedia it is situation, not individual people, that takes fault for corruption.  Perhaps in case of Poland also, I dont know.  But situation of Poland is very complicated, while Wikipedia situation is much simpler and can be fixed, in my view, by not accepting such problematic articles.  Sincerely, Janusz.  Januszkarp 06:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I've expended a great deal of energy on this article -- one of the prinicple authors of the current version. I don't agree that Aetherometry is at all crazy, but it's certainly intellectually shocking. Whatever my judgement about the subject, Janusz is right. Without secondary literature on both sides there's no way to satisfy WP:V so even if the article was a perfectly accurate description of the subject there'd be nothing to reference against but a complete survey of the primary literature. So this is the kind of article Wikipedia was just not meant to do, and that's alright. I didn't really understand this in the last AfD when I voted to keep. Sometime down the road maybe the situation will be different and whatever Wikipedia editors come along can build an article with literature references. Pgio 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Aetherometry has appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore the article is not orginal research so is not a candidate for deletion. --Psychologesetz 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So we can have some citations for the theory and its critique then! Please add them to the article ASAP (you'll need to create a References section since this is currently conspicuous by its absence). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: this AFD vote is Psy's only edit this year: . William M. Connolley 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Comment. Hi, Psychologesetz. Saying that aetherometry has appeared in peer-reviewed journals is serious statement.  If it appears, maybe then I am in error that claims about aetherometry are not verifiable.  But statement is a bit surprising after so many months and needs some additional information.  What are these journals and who writes in them about aetherometry?  Why are they not referred to in Wikipedia aetherometry entry?  I would like, if possible, also opinion of Dr. Connolley about this.  Dr. Connolley, do you know about these journals, what they are and what they say?  Are they reputable and in accordance with Wikipedia verifiability policy of minority and majority view?  Sincerely, Janusz.  Januszkarp 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Pierremenard 12:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep pseudoscience with a lineage, derivative of Reich GangofOne 12:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, GangofOne. Could you please support with verifiable sources your statement that aetherometry is pseudoscience?  Also, to me your point is a little confusing.  Why  does lineage and being derivative qualify for inclusion in encyclopedia, even if topic contradicts other policy?  Maybe this is other Wikipedia policy that I dont know about?  Please explain.  Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * delete - waste of time and the page is currently junk. Will change to keep if people voting keep are prepared to help make it sane. William M. Connolley 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Comment. Hi, this is Janusz. I think Dr. Connolley's position is very correct. People who vote to keep article should take responsibility for their vote, otherwise it is just cheap words.  They have to be able to make commitment to sanity of article that they vote to include in encyclopedia.  "Sanity" means reputability, honesty and verifiability.  It means that no statements should be permitted that are not supported by reputable external sources, for both of majority views and minority views.  So far, Natalinasmpf, Obina, Terence Ong, Psychologesetz and GangofOne voted to keep article, so they need to make commitment insuring reputability, honesty and verifiability.  How will they insure this?  It has never been done in this article before.  Perhaps I will write to them personally and ask.  Sincerely, Janusz.  Januszkarp 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hi, this is Janusz. I asked the following question here before and Dr. Connolley moved it to the Discussion page.  I do not mean to be impolite or violate rules, but I think question should be here and not hidden, so voters can clearly see how much time is left.  So I hope you will excuse me for asking this here again:
 * Question to Wikipedia administration. Could somebody inform us when will be closing time for this vote? If it is 5 days after beginning time, then vote will close  20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC).  Please kindly confirm that time, or tell when is correct time.  Sincerely, Janusz.  Januszkarp 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The answer is, not less than five days from the start of the debate, but there is no rule saying when it must be closed, and if debate is still going on it is not at all uncommon for AfDs to be left open for longer than the five days. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] AfD? 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. This seems good flexible policy, but puts large responsibility on decision maker for choosing without bias when to close vote.  Can you tell us who is decisionmaker for this vote, or is this secret?  Excuse me for not knowing answers to these questions.  Sincerely, Janusz.  Januszkarp 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. If this article gets deleted fopr reason stated, 10,000s of articles in WP will need to be deleted as well. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 18:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jossi. Yes, of course, if 10000s of other Wikipedia entries are full of unverifiable claims that are just opinion and violate Wikipedia policy as encyclopedia, and if this is not solvable, they should be deleted also.  Does your vote mean you accept commitment to make aetherometry article reputable, honest and verifiable?  Sincerely, Janusz.  Januszkarp 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that you are misinterpreting WP:V and WP:NPOV. My experience is that with time and patience, articles become better. The responsibility of making this and other articles better, lies on all WP editors, not only on those that vote not to delete. &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 18:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But the responsibility for ensuring that this article discusses a subject which has the potential to be covered from a neutral point of view using only verifiable data from reputable sources is very much the job of this discussion. As far as I can see there is no reputable peer-reviewed journal which has published this theory and as such it is impossible to cover it neutrally without straying into original research.  It's quite clear form policy that Wikipedia is not a publisher of firsat instance, either of theories or of their debunking.  The most we can say about it from the sources cited in the article (i.e. none) is that it is a theory promoted by a small group of people which has never been subjected to peer-review and is thus not accepted by the scientific community at large.  Instead we have this long and rambling argument which belongs on a personal website, like the theory itself. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 19:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete — see Januszkarp and Pgio's arguments. Besides, such pointless bloodbaths give Wikipedia a bad name. —Meidosemme 22:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I forgot myself to vote. Januszkarp 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, as above Vote may be discountable if "being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Emphasis added. New User:Januszkarp's contributions began January 13 and have been on no other topic than the deletion of the Aetherometry article. GangofOne 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is Janusz. I hope person who is in charge of evaluating votes will use more serious criteria than number of previous edits.  This person has large and heavy responsibility.  Forgive again my not knowing, but how is this person appointed?  Is there announcement some place about who this person is?   Sincerely, Janusz.  Januszkarp 18:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent question. As far as I know there is no appointment. Anyone who has been designated "admin" can act as that person. GangofOne 20:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Incognito 00:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly per Pgio. My reasoning: we don't need to go on about peer-reviewed journals; a quick Google search reveals that no one, except a few bloggers, have written about "Aetherometry"-- and they don't count. Forget science. The article is nothing more than an absurdly in-depth review of a website with an Alexa rank of two million. Melchoir 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Google count of 40,000 means it is notable enough. People will look to Wikipedia to find out what is known about this topic, and what is merely asserted or alleged.  If we can't verify facts, we can report on their absence.  For example, "No paper on Aetherometry has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal", which, by-the-way, is exactly what the current article says. Johntex\talk 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that we can't always write the articles we want. It would be great to educate the public on all kinds of issues, but this here is an encyclopedia. There does not exist the material that would allow us to write an encyclopedia article on Aetherometry; and since we cannot, we shouldn't try. The only kind of Wikipedia article that might belong at wiki/Aetherometry would be an article on the website, which is what we currently have, don't kid yourself. But the website itself is not notable enough to deserve this treatment. Melchoir 01:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Google is not everything, what matters first is publication and notability in literature and not googles established notability. Fad (ix) 03:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked the no-paper bit; I only just restored it after a long absence. But already people are trying to remove it . If you're not prepared to help keep the article sane, please reconsider your vote. William M. Connolley 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep. Interesting to read about.  For those who are concerned with the 'reliability' and 'reputation' of Wikipedia, I see it as a place that has something to say about everything.  Now for real information i could reference in a paper, I go to written books and published encyclopaedias.  I'm not allowed to reference Wikipedia.  But I am appreciative of the things that can be read about, whether or not they are congruent with scientific theory blah blah blah.  Shouldn't alternatives be considered, and as such?  Anonymous 23:19, 18 Juanuary 200 (UTC) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.191.36 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * "place that has something to say about everything" Bzzt, wrong. Melchoir 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, sadly. I think Janusz is right: for scientific topics, if there is no standard, generally accepted literature to work with, the topic does not belong in Wikipedia.  I don't understand why the original submitter of the entry was not simply told this, at the very start, and the entry promptly, courteously and neutrally deleted.  There is some crucial piece of procedure missing here.  FrankZappo 16:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is your answer. People have bent over backwards to be fair to this article, possibly to the point where they can't see the light.  For me there is one crucial question to answer: is this about a scientific theory, or about a kook website?  If the former, it has never been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal; deletion is a no-brainer.  If the latter, it is so far short of WP:WEB that again it's pretty clear-cut.  Much of the argument above seems to be defending Wikipedia as a source for publishing critique of the theory - but that assumes the scientific theory interpretation, and not only is WP:NOT a publisher of original thought; as a scientific concept it falls at the first hurdle, well before you get into the merits of how neutral the article is, or the edit wars, or other questions.  Even the flat earth hypothesis gets some coverage in the peer-reviewed literature, this appears to have none at all.  Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Hi, I would like to make observation/question. With topic such as aetherometry, with no secondary acceptable literature, all information comes from people who read primary sources. It cannot be certain if what they say is not just their interpretation, but it is certain that without them there cannot be entry, because there is no secondary information at all. In case of aetherometry such person now is Pgio. And there also cannot be entry without majority scientific view described. This job in case of aetherometry is completely impossible, but much of it rests on shoulders of Dr. Connolley. There are also people constantly doing work to clean from entry unverifiable bias inserted every day, and FrankZappo is one such person. Here is situation I want to comment about: I see voters on this page coming in and just saying "entry should stay because is interesting" or "entry should stay because is high on Google". These voters do not suggest any solution to problems of verifiability and they cannot do job of Pgio or Dr. Connolley in work on entry. Do their votes count same as votes of people without whose work entry could not exist? If they do, then people like Pgio, Dr. Connolley, or FrankZappo, because they care about quality of entry, are in position of forced labor. Even if they say "we prefer entry deleted because we are in impossible situation", anybody can walk in and say "no, you must continue to be in impossible situation because I think entry is interesting or high on Google". In this way people who have passion to keep entry "sane", as Dr. Connolley said, and who because of passion do work on entry, can become prisoners of anybody who comes in and frivolously says "keep". Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 17:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this per WMC &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The entry cannot be "kept sane", because it has never yet been sane, is not sane now, and has no chance of becoming sane.  Every edit on it just leads to endless repetitious insanity.  It may well be that some people, like GangofOne, thrive on creating situations of chaos and insanity, and like to stoke them wherever they see them.   But on the side of clarity and sanity, the vote should be to delete.  Helicoid 19:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Talk, archives and history speak for themselves.   DrHyde 20:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! Wot 'e said! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 20:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT a soapbox for pseudoscience. --BadSeed 23:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.