Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymatic Theology (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 was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cymatic Theology
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was previously deleted after deletion debate here. There were concerns at the time with accuracy and notability. I share those concerns, at least about notability. The term “cymatic theology” currently hits 27 results on Google. Every single one of them is Wikipedia related, including the mirror at Wikia. I have no hits at all in Google news. No hits in Google books. No hits in Google scholar. It seems therefore at best to be a very narrowly utilized Neologism, and that is likely to remain unchanged even if the predicted article appears by “Mark Pretorious” in June 2011. The term is non-notable. The author of the term, Dr Mark Pretorius (to whom the single-purpose account creator is evidently closely related), certainly seems to exist. He has some publications. If he meets WP:ACADEMIC, then it may be appropriate to reference his theory in an article on him. In that case, a redirect might be appropriate. But we currently do not have an article on Dr Mark Pretorius, and I do not know if he meets ACADEMIC. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will be most pleased to write a redirect for him, if it is required. I have also placed a comment on your other page, regarding your concerns. I stated there that a major website is currently being built by a number of scholars on this wwwcymatictheology.com. It should be ready in about two weeks.

Cosmikos (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: by "your other page", I presume you mean your talk page, where I left you a note about our conflict of interest guideline. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. Cosmikos (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per cosmikos Someone65 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete: a broadly used term to explain research being conducted, especially by Dr Mark Pretorius, on sound, light and creation... The central tenet of cymatic theology, is that God used sound (harmonic tones) to bring the universe and creation into existence. This would appear to be one man's theory, not widely used or discussed by anyone but the author at this time, and as such original research. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your concern is that this may be original research, therefore not suitable for a wiki page. The page does not refer to any work being original. What the page does infer is that Pretorius has used the term Cymatic Theology to explain what is regarded as revised research, to include aspects of God using sound to create, just as the Hindus refer to OM (see wiki) as the creative sound God used. The following references definitely show that this is not original research, but slightly revised, to include subsequent information. The following articles are just a few examples of the research in this area (there are dozens). It includes two good pages on sound and creation from wiki pages. http://www.5thray.com/tunes.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om http://convozine.com/conversations/6023 http://www.ratemyink.com/?action=ssp&pid=103589 Extensive work has been done on this by John Stuart Reid and the Cymascope http://cymascope.com/cyma_research/history.html Dr Pretorius is in constant contact with John on this, and he has recently reviewed one of Pretorius’s articles on this. Cosmikos (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern is that it isn't notable. None of these links, reliable or otherwise, refer to "Cymatic Theology". See Notability. The article you have created says it is a "broadly used term"; where are the sources to substantiate that this is a "broadly used term"? (The fact that there may be sources to verify notability later constitutes an original research issue. As that latter policy points out, we are a tertiary source; we exist to summarize what published secondary sources say about subjects.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, perhaps it is simple semantics. I will change it to "It is used to generally explain areas of research being conducted...", Rather than "A broadly used term". Would that suffice? Cosmikos (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not, because the core issue here remains that we need previously published secondary sources discussing "Cymatic Theology" as such to retain an article on it. Every article on Wikipedia should have sufficient reliable, independent sources to verify that the subject meets the relevant notability inclusion guidelines. In this case, the guideline is Notability. If "cymatic theology" is not in itself significantly covered in independent sources, we may not be able to sustain an article on it. If Dr. Pretorius publishes his work and it generates significant discussions from others, then the subject can easily meet the notability threshold. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, as I stated, there is a major collaboration of scholars working on a website for cymatic theology. This includes contributions from John Stewart Reid (an English acoustics engineer, scientist and inventor of the cymascope), Erik Larsons (a joint American inventor of the cymascope) and others, who are taking the science of cymatics and cymatic theology to new levels of study with what is called a cymascsope (it is referred to in the cymatics wiki). I have asked that the first page of the website be permanently made available to the public so that you may see that there are independent scholars contributing and writing on this particular area of research www.cymatictheology.com. It is where my writings on the wiki have also been lifted from.

Many thank for your guidance on this.

Cosmikos (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that that page doesn't confirm anything about independent scholars. :/ We have no means of verifying who maintains it or why or what affiliation they may have with Dr. Pretorius. It is, for Wikipedia's purposes, a "self-published source" —a website of uncertain authority. (Reliable sources are defined at Identifying reliable sources). Please review N which may help clarify matters. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Unfortunately I cannot contribute anymore information, so I will thus leave it in your capable hands. If the page needs to be deleted, then so be it. Thank you for at least taking the time to correspond with me on the subject, and I wish you well.

Cosmikos (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of sources. I advise User:Cosmikos to read WP:CRYSTAL. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - even if they are going to  be publishing a website soon, it won't confer notability and it won't  pass WP:RS. Moonriddengirl has made a perfectly  detailed deletion rationale, making it unnecessary to provide blue links to all the other reasons why  this article fails. Kudpung (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you go and have a look before passing a comment. It will perhaps soften your outlook. This is what she said (If "cymatic theology" is not in itself significantly covered in independent sources, we may not be able to sustain an article on it.). The website content is written by independent sources.

Cosmikos (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt Of the nine references at present in the article, six do not mention "Cymatic Theology", nor indeed "Cymatic" anything else. The other three are not reliable independent sources. As an indication of how relevant some of the references are, this is a page giving an elementary account of the physics of sound waves, apparently aimed at school children. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that God used sound to create the universe, which is what we are told "Cymatic Theology" is. I have checked on Google, and there seems to be some progress since Moonriddengirl did so. She found zero non-wikipedia-related hits. I found a grand total of three, all of them hosted on either cymatictheology.com or www.satsonline.org, the web site of SA Theological Seminary, which employs Mark Pretorius, who according to the article is the main person conducting "research" into "Cymatic Theology". Consequently neither the article's references nor web searches produce any reliable independent sources at all. The concept is not remotely notable, and the article, which was created by a single purpose account, is almost certainly intended as promotion. This is the fourth time the article has been created by the same user, and the second time that editors' time has been taken up on a deletion discussion. It is time to put an end to this. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2011 (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.