Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apriorics


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Apriorics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Almost entirely original research. The theory is the work of one academic Yakir Shoshani and every cite is to Shoshani's primary research. The article's original most-contributing author thanks Shoshani for "reviewing" the article. There is no evidence in a WP:BEFORE that any other author has contributed to the body of research on this theory. It appears to be one of many alternatives to quantum mechanics but nowhere is there evidence that there is any significant engagement with this idea in the literature. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete All of the coverage of the theory appears to be in-universe, no evidence of notability from independent sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete no external coverage at all. --mfb (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is not sufficient coverage of sources. Rondolinda (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This one actually spills over into "Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up one day" territory, I think. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete- nothing independent in the refs and searches reveal nothing better. Primary research and overwhelming COI. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk  19:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 *  Answer  As I understand it, the term "original research" in Wikipedia context refers to research that is published originally in Wikipedia. This is not the case for Apriorics. The research has been presented at a scientific conference and published in several distinguished scientific journals. In addition, it has been published as a book by a respectable publishing house. Publishing in all these places requires approval by leading scientists. The very fact that the research was published by these journals proves that it is in fact considered "notable" by those scientists. Motizin (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Commment I agree it's not exactly "original research" on Wikipedia, but something being published in a journal, or even as a book, does not inherently make it notable. It needs independant sources, such as being widely cites in other journals, or multiple book reviews, etc. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: Publishing in all these places requires approval by leading scientists. This is a misconception. The process of publishing a paper, assuming it is in a place that even enforces peer review, does not involve endorsement or approval by either the publisher or the reviewers. Peer review does not prevent the publication of invalid or fraudulent research and multiple authors who have examined the topic have independently found that peer review does not raise the overall quality of published research.  See, for example, the Sokal affair or the Andrew Wakefield fraud for just two examples.  For these reasons and others, mere publishing of an idea is not considered an indicator of notability by this site. Re: The very fact that the research was published by these journals proves that it is in fact considered "notable" by those scientists. This is a misconception of what notability means in the scientific community and what it means on this site.  Journals are in the business of publishing papers and there are literally tens of thousands of them worldwide publishing millions of articles.  The overwhelming majority of those articles are quickly forgotten and wouldn't even be considered "notable" even within their own field, never mind the wider scientific community.  Furthermore, we have a very clear standard for notability that requires "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". There is no evidence that there is independent development of this idea by other specialists or that there is attention paid to it by those specialists. It is notable by neither the wider definition nor by ours.  I hope that helps explain the reasons why I nominated this article.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Answer In fact, none of the references of this page are "peer reviewed". All are checked and approved by distinguished reviewers.Motizin (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2021 (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.