Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fringe theory


 * 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   keep. That's what the consensus was even prior to Squeamish Ossifrage's impressive rewrite of the article on 29 September 2014‎.  Sandstein  19:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per the discussion held here. There is no source covering this topic in a non-trivial way; it is not notable and not encyclopedic, and fails to meet the criteria for inclusion. Nearly All of the content and the uses of references/citations in the article are WP:SYNTH. Logos (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  15:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: That discussion basically says that a "fringe theory" is only a concept within Wikipedia itself, which is not true. See here: a search result for "fringe theory" that excludes results in Wikipedia still gives 23,000 results. And then see here: if we exclude both the Wiipedia domain and the word "Wikipedia" itself, we still have 14,000 results. On the other hand, let's consider for a moment if the claim is true: the article should stay regardless. Even if the concept had been born inside wikipedia, it has clearly grew beyond it. The article would have to explain the origin of the term, then... citing some reliable source, and avoiding self-references. Cambalachero (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GHITS and of course WP:VERYOLD Logos (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Which relation can you find between this discussion and "VERYOLD"? Cambalachero (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A little nuance blinks its eye from "..it has clearly grew beyond it", to imply age or something similar.. Logos (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The verb "grow" can also be used for something that has expanded from its smaller origin. For example, "The shop's sales are growing". In that case, "grow" is not focused in the pass of time (as when we use it in relation to people), but in the expansion itself. Cambalachero (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, then there is WP:PLENTY as well, for "argument from size" cases. Logos (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And again, there's no relation with the discussion at hand. You claim that a "fringe theory" is a concept that only exists within wikipedia, and I pointed that that's not the case, regardless of the concept initial origin (by the way, I have yet to see some source making the direct claim that "a fringe theory is a concept that originated in Wikipedia" or similar; you just gave inferences from statistics). To reply, you point an essay that says that the size of an article is not in itself a valid reason against deletion; something that nobody has suggested here. Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreteing/misprepresenting my comments on fringe noticeboard. My point was/is "fringe theory" is well-established only in wikipedia; existence of such a phrase for decades does not warrant its place in wikipedia. It should have been discussed/defined extensively in more than 1 reliable source (as is the case with pseudoscience). I guess the best way to prove the existence of any extensive coverage of "fringe theory" concept outside wikipedia (that is your side of the debate), is to present reliable sources. This side of the debate (that is the side of the "delete" & "merge") can't prove something's absence (your challenge about "a source making the direct claim that a fringe theory is a concept that originated in Wikipedia or similar" is quite interesting/stereotypical though). The burden to prove something's existence is on "keep" side of this debate. For something to grow past it should have a quantifiable property like size or age; you stated it was not the age you were referring to, then the only quantifiable property left was the size, so there is a relation between WP:PLENTY and your argument. And there is this: WP:ONLYESSAY. Logos (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the misinterpretation. You say that "fringe theory" is well established only in wikipedia, and that's precisely the point that I have refuted in my first post. The concept does exist outside of Wikipedia, and you haven't really proved that it originated from Wikipedia in the first place. Cambalachero (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's quite normal that you can't see, because you're changing/amending your point(s) very frequently. "Claiming that 'fringe theory' is a concept which only exists within wikipedia" is not the same as "claiming that 'fringe theory' is well-established only in wikipedia". The latter is/was my claim, not the former, but you claimed that I had claimed the former. You haven't refuted anything until now, you're just spinning. As I stated in my previous comment; the burden is on your side, not on this side (that is me or anybody supporting merge/delete). Logos (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Fringe theory is an accepted idea, look at a dictionary or search on google. Also there is a whole wikipedia content guideline based on this idea, WP:FRINGE (Wikipedia:Fringe theories). Also see .--Mrjulesd (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Read all the discussion, then come back. WP:NOTDIC but even dictionaries do not seem to have given a damn about it:.
 * "Also there is a whole wikipedia content guideline based on this idea, WP:FRINGE": it's really fun to discuss here. Logos (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment How likely would it be that there would be a whole WP guideline on the concept, without it also existing in the outside world? Also you have answered about all the references on the web. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You should spend some time on a sandbox before participating in AfD discussions, which might have hallucinative effects on you; there is nothing in those dictionaries (the links I've given above) about "fringe theory". Logos (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK don't answer my questions. But it would be ridiculous to have a WP content guideline on fringe theories without having an article explaining its meaning.--Mrjulesd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? What policies and guidelines we have, and terms for use in practice do not themselves need to be suitable for a dedicated article in an encyclopedia, Second Quantization (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: well I disagree. To have whole content guideline based on the concept of Fringe theories, but to not actually explain the term in an article, is ridculous. For example, lets say you wanted deeper understanding of the concept of "Fringe Theory" so you can better understand the WP guideline Fringe theories? If no article existed you'd have to use google to try to look up the term. Fringe theories only discusses the WP policy, not the origins of the term.
 * Also, having a WP content guideline based on "Fringe Theory" suggests to me that it is a notable topic to address, which must exist of WP. And a google search confirms this. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, or merge with fringe science . The idea that this topic is the result of Wikipedians' novel synthesis is impossible to reconcile with the abundant literature on the topic. It is legitimately true that there is no certain means to distinguish fringe theories or fringe science, but the demarcation problem does not invalidate a topic. Nontrivial works that are germane include, but are by no means limited to:
 * The decision of whether fringe theory and fringe science are sufficiently distinguished from each other to warrant separate articles (as well as the quality of those articles) is an editorial matter, not an issue for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All the references you listed might be about "fringe science" at best, not "fringe theory". I'm sure those books fail to cover "fringe theory" in a non-trivial fashion. Unnecessary splits should be avoided WP:AVOIDSPLIT; if not, it becomes more than an editorial issue -a matter of an AfD, to be more specific-. If "philosophy of science" (or any other recognised area of study), do not cover "fringe theory" in a serious manner (as with "pseudoscience"), then it is not more than an everyday trivial usage. The current state of the article does even fall under WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Logos (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I find Blueboar's suggestion compelling: that this article's should serve as a categorical parent to topics such as fringe science and pseudohistory (finding significant discussion of pseudohistory as "fringe history" was trivial, and I can provide sources if required). I have struck my merger proposal accordingly. On the contrary, I find your dismissal of the sources I have already provided somewhat less persuasive. You will find that all of the above sources discuss the topic at some length, albeit admittedly while using varied nomenclature to do so. But neither am I particularly sympathetic to the argument that describing a theory forwarded by fringe science as a fringe theory constitutes a novel synthesis (and of the above, Wertheim, at a minimum, uses that precise phrase). As an aside, use of the phrase "fringe theory" dates back at least to a 1985 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer; it is not a novel coinage, nor one unique to this project. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, age is not a factor: WP:VERYOLD Logos (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether we're on the same track. Using the precise phrase "fringe theory" is quite different than defining it extensively/sufficiently; the former is everyday trivial usage. If above sources discuss "fringe theory" at some length, why don't you add the relevant material into the article then. I'm sure everybody (including myself) will be happy to see those discussions -of which you claim the existence- from those sources in this topic's wikipedia article, rather than WP:SYNTHy citations and WP:OR article content/material. As WP:SYNTH states clearly, we can not use sources as references for the material which those sources even do not cover or imply. Logos (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm quite aware of sourcing requirements, and of the difference between passing use of a term and discussion of a concept. Conversely, I am aware that a source need not use the precise phrasing of a Wikipedia article title in order to be viable for referencing said topic (as confirmed by WP:TITLE); such a dichotomy is simply not what is contemplated by WP:SYNTH. Sources which discuss the theories proposed by fringe science and/or fringe history clearly satisfy the requirements of applicability to a Wikipedia article on fringe theory. If your argument is that they do not, then we most certainly are not on the same track. Finally, whether or not I choose to take the editorial action of improving this admittedly sorry excuse for an article has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion of its eligibility for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No; you just seem trying to "abuse" (some might consider it as WP:GAMING) following statement in WP:TITLE/WP:RECOGNIZABLE in order to justify the inclusion of non-notable/trivial "fringe theory" concept, and to justify naming the article as "fringe theory": "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."
 * Sources which discuss the theories proposed by fringe science and/or fringe history clearly do not satisfy the requirements of applicability to the Wikipedia article Fringe theory. In order for a source to be applicable/usable for Fringe theory article, it should have the extensive discussion and the definition of "fringe theory" concept. If the article in question were a list type, then the sources discussing the theories proposed by fringe science and/or fringe history would be applicable, just like in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience.
 * As WP:PROVEIT states clearly; "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The eligibility for deletion is determined by WP:DELetion policy. If you present your claim (which states that some sources discuss "fringe theory" in non-trivial fashion at some length) as an argument to Keep Fringe theory in this deletion discussion, then I believe the burden is on you to prove it. Logos (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am working on an ground-up rewrite at this time; it will not be ready for several days, because I do not do slapdash research when I take the time to work in articlespace. However, since Logos's primary contention is that there are no sources which provide extensive discussion of a "fringe theory" concept, I will highlight the following two sources foremost, as they are explicitly concerned with providing a "fringe theory" definition (as part of an effort to improve the categorization of theories by level of acceptance):
 * I trust that this satisfies the demand that I present satisfactory sources (insofar as my previous ones were still questioned). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For such a controversial subject, the sources better be online; so that everyone can check the related material. Otherwise, anyone can come and drop a source name here, as a proof for the verifiability; as is the case with the current material in the article. Regarding the Dutch's (who is an academic in geology) article, I can recommend this; where it is pretty obvious that Dutch's handling of "fringe theory" is not non-trivial.
 * "A useful classification scheme is that of Dutch (1980), who described a three-tiered hierarchical classification of theories: central, frontier, and fringe. Dutch (1980) classifies hypotheses as fringe theories; most do not stand the test of time and will be discarded. Some theories are supported but have unresolved inconsistencies and/or serious alternatives; these are frontier theories which constitute the mainstream thinking of a scientific discipline. Central theories are no longer seriously disputed, and form the foundation of a discipline."
 * It seems that he does not give an extensive definition of "fringe theory" concept, he just uses "fringe theory" phrase -together with central and frontier labeling- to label some group of theories hypotheses. So, "fringe theory" phrase was just used as a "tool" by Dutch; it was not the primary goal/objective of Dutch to deal with "fringe theory" concept in detail, which in the end makes that coverage trivial. Some other academic/scientist can come up with a different scheme of theory/hypothesis classification or labeling. Have mainstream scholars concurred with Dutch on such a classification/labeling? For example, an academic from a philosophy of science might object the classification of "hypotheses" as "fringe theories". That's why, we need to report mainstream view with reliable sources in wikipedia. A source reliable in some context might not be reliable in another WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Logos (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "For such a controversial subject, the sources better be online" I don't think so, see core policy, WP:Verifiability. There are libraries and bookstores and other ways to access sources for verification (including WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. If a source is published the onus falls on the editor who challenges the source to verify (of course collaboration can be helped by providing quotes etc.) I think the argument of trivial is weak but I await the forthcoming revision and my own verification of the sources presented. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What WP:Verifiability states is a general principle. When editors do not fully follow WP:BURDEN, then it is quite normal to demand online sources:
 * "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this."
 * So, it is fully clear from the policy WP:V that the onus is always on those seeking to include disputed content.
 * Actually WP:V summarizes all the key issues for inclusion, such as WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:ONUS, Verifiability. Logos (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of linking to every policy you can find, maybe just read the relevant one. Firstly, WP:BURDEN is a content policy and not relevant in this discussion. Secondly, WP:BURDEN is satisfied when the citation is provided. There is absolutely zero requirement for it to be an online source. Second Quantization (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All the policies/guidelines/essays I linked are relevant, including WP:BURDEN. WP:BURDEN is more satisfied when the sources are cited clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). If the page or section/chapter is omitted, then it is not a full citation and is not more than a general reference. Page numbers are important and needed to filter out WP:SYNTHy or irrelevant sourcing. Logos (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One cannot "demand" online sources, see WP:Published. Full citations are of course highly preferable to incomplete ones and page/chapter numbers are almost a necessity. However a general reference could provide support for keeping an article, while being less desirable for supporting content. I would hope the pending rewrite will have precise citations. Given precise citations verification can be accomplished with less difficulty. There are still libraries, many materials are available for purchase etc. Free online sources is not a requirement on WP and you should know that. BURDEN say, "reliable, published source" not online source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One can demand online sources for easier review, especially when presenting sources as a general reference without specifying page numbers has become a general practice. According to WP:Published's logic, which is neither policy nor guideline, if a source is "accessible" for the editor who cites it, then it will not be impossible to specify the page numbers. If page numbers are omitted, then the source's accessibility or relevancy becomes questionable. Logos (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "One can demand online sources for easier review" this is simply not policy also off topic RSN is the appropriate venue. Of ironic note one of the most accessable online sources for books, Google Books, often has digital versions of books that are not page numbered, I have seen unnumbered pages in digital books from Amazon also. However as I said, once a source has been provided, unless doing the verification that the source does not state what is asserted the policy is to AGF so long as the source is a reliable published source, contesting the reliability of a source is for RSN. While burden requires a clear and precise citation of source there is no policy supporting a demand for sources to be available online. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Books need page numbers and in my experience the vast majority of book references do have page numbers. You can't demand online sources. You can ask for them, of course - or even find them yourself. Articles don't need page numbers. If the book is online without page numbers but can be linked via an url, that should do. Anyway, I can't see this article being deleted. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "vast majority" would be a very optimistic guess. Take fringe theory for instance; half of the books cited do not have page numbers. If the book is online and can be linked to the related page via an url, then page numbers can be omitted of course; otherwise it is no different than citing the book as a general reference. The key issue here is "accessibility", which is necessary to be able to check whether or not the material added exists in the source.
 * WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS states that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". Therefore, normally this article should be deleted, as there is no solid argument from Keep side, not to mention WP:SYNTHy and irrelevant sources. However, I also can see that no any administrator can have that courage/nerve to close the discussion as Delete. Logos (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I must admit Logos' arguments have merit but the counter arguments are not so poor as described in the quote above. I look forward to an improved article with clear references so this can be discussed with sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to pretend that my rewrite is flawless nor complete. Most critically, I'm still awaiting access to a physical copy of Duschl's Restructuring Science Education, which should be a fairly critical source regarding efforts to overcome the demarcation problem. Accordingly, I'm not able to cite Duschl directly (and so cannot discuss his criteria for categorization). I've done what I can with Erduran & Dagher in the meantime, but I wouldn't consider this a comprehensive review of the literature until I can take care of that. There are also a couple of errant journal articles I'm trying to track down, but nothing central to the article structure. Regardless, I'd like to believe this is a substantially stronger article than the coatrack-y mess of a pseudo-disambiguation page that was there previously. I'm sorry it took me as long as I did to get this up; clearly, I had to put in some overtime on this one... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Still needs to be worked on. I feel that there are still many/some OR elements. For instance; "In a similar manner, what were once mainstream theories, such as phlogiston or luminiferous aether, can be superseded and relegated to the fringe". I don't suppose there can be such a backward shift, and also the cited book (Shermer reference looks merged with this) does not seem to support it. Because, a view/theory which was once mainstream, should be refuted/rejected somehow to fall from grace. Once refuted, then it is not a theory anymore: Obsolete scientific theory. Logos (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Few and far between are the articles that could not be improved, however I think AfD is well passed. Any policy based dispute? - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Squeamish Ossifrage's efforts are "admirable", but the article can not pass WP:OR. There still seems many "unpublished" elements/material in the new article. The lead has no reference; which source has at least the theme of that material? I am quite sure that if we check the citations one by one, we won't see more than a non-trivial coverage of "fringe theory", all are "peripheral" to the subject. And "a common sense distillation of its use in thousands of sources" looks like a workaround to WP:OR. You can't distillate something if the essence of it does not exist in any published source. "Fringe theory"s non-existence in other encyclopedias and dictionaries should tell something. Logos (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Admirable gets scare quotes, huh? The lead is uncited because that is general practice; no information is presented in the lead which is not presented in greater detail in the body. Such statements need not be cited in the lead (absent certain exceptions, mostly dealing with BLP concerns, none of which apply to this lead as written). You will find that uncited leads of this nature are the default expectation for Featured Article Candidates. That aside, you are correct that this article is not done; I would not submit it to FAC while I have at least three source requests pending (especially including Duschl). A more thorough enumeration of topics which were formerly well-established and now exist solely as fringe theories might include modern geocentrism, for example, depending on what sources can confirm; whether obsolete or superseded scientific theories remain scientific theories is irrelevant to whether they are fringe theories, as the two phrases do not use the word theory in the same sense. I am more than happy to work with other editors to continue to refine the quality of this article. However, Logos, I do not believe that your interpretation of the very many policies you have cited is strictly compatible with community consensus regarding those policies, and I do not intend to respond further to your—my turn with scare quotes—"concerns". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is not that much exception to citing in the lead WP:LEAD, WP:LEADCITE.
 * "You will find that uncited leads of this nature are the default expectation for Featured Article Candidates": is there any policy/guideline that you can refer to for this interesting piece?
 * The policies and guidelines I have cited are quite obvious, there are no gaps. If "community" had any problem with any of those, then they would have amended accordingly in writing, instead of referring to imaginary interpretations. You preferred to misrepresent/misinterpret (the ones of which I pointed above) and also to use fallacious arguments in order to strengthen your position.
 * You keep "producing"/sythesizing about fringe theory, but fail to cite sources for your improvisations. In wikipedia, we are after the published facts in published sources to include in articles, not after the editors' personal opinions/syntheses.
 * As I stated to another one, I don't care whether or not you or any other responds to my comments. Logos (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will respond to this only to say that I spend a considerable amount of time reviewing article at WP:FAC, have sponsored three articles through the process personally, and am intimately familiar with the featured article community's expectations for lead citations (to wit: they are not required in most cases, and are generally discouraged because the lead should introduce no novel material; it serves an abstract). I find your continued insinuations of misconduct tendentious. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sided/partial with policies & guidelines and have been arguing by citing accordingly. If people also had responded by citing the relevant policies/guidelines, instead of arguing with weasel statements unsupported by policies/guidelines, then this discussion would have progressed healthily. Appealing to one's own personal subjective experiences with such a "peripheral"/secondary aspect of wikipedia, is a kind of appeal to authority, and is fallacious to me. Until an uncertain "featured article" "ranking" in future, such controversial articles should try to resolve WP:OR/WP:SYNTH doubts/concerns. Logos (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the main weakness of your arguments is that they have been that only been based on one particular aspect, that is a particularly strict interpretation of WP:OR. But you have not contemplated one particular policy, and that is WP:COMMONSENSE. Common sense is part one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the principle that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." A number of common sense arguments have been brought forward, but you have not seemed to have contemplated them. In future you should be more open to common sense arguments, otherwise you can get a distorted view of the notability of subjects. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your only contribution to this discussion was nothing but just nonsense; this may be because of your being a newbie (if you're a sockpuppet, you would be amazed how efficient wikipedia checkusers are in identifying any sockpuppetry). "Ignorantia_juris_may_excuse" but "but willfully disregarding them and disrupting the editorial process of constructing our online encyclopedia is quite another". There is this essay WP:BITECLUB for you to study the other side of the story. WP:COMMONSENSE is not a policy, it's an essay; you will find the hierarchical order of power here. And Five_pillars has no "common sense" in it; you can be sure that WP:V and WP:OR policies will not change radically -to excuse the type of workarounds devised for this and other articles- in next 100 years or so. If you keep gaming the system, you may learn the necessary precautions hard way. Logos (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep "producing"/sythesizing about fringe theory, but fail to cite sources for your improvisations. In wikipedia, we are after the published facts in published sources to include in articles, not after the editors' personal opinions/syntheses.
 * As I stated to another one, I don't care whether or not you or any other responds to my comments. Logos (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will respond to this only to say that I spend a considerable amount of time reviewing article at WP:FAC, have sponsored three articles through the process personally, and am intimately familiar with the featured article community's expectations for lead citations (to wit: they are not required in most cases, and are generally discouraged because the lead should introduce no novel material; it serves an abstract). I find your continued insinuations of misconduct tendentious. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sided/partial with policies & guidelines and have been arguing by citing accordingly. If people also had responded by citing the relevant policies/guidelines, instead of arguing with weasel statements unsupported by policies/guidelines, then this discussion would have progressed healthily. Appealing to one's own personal subjective experiences with such a "peripheral"/secondary aspect of wikipedia, is a kind of appeal to authority, and is fallacious to me. Until an uncertain "featured article" "ranking" in future, such controversial articles should try to resolve WP:OR/WP:SYNTH doubts/concerns. Logos (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the main weakness of your arguments is that they have been that only been based on one particular aspect, that is a particularly strict interpretation of WP:OR. But you have not contemplated one particular policy, and that is WP:COMMONSENSE. Common sense is part one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the principle that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." A number of common sense arguments have been brought forward, but you have not seemed to have contemplated them. In future you should be more open to common sense arguments, otherwise you can get a distorted view of the notability of subjects. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your only contribution to this discussion was nothing but just nonsense; this may be because of your being a newbie (if you're a sockpuppet, you would be amazed how efficient wikipedia checkusers are in identifying any sockpuppetry). "Ignorantia_juris_may_excuse" but "but willfully disregarding them and disrupting the editorial process of constructing our online encyclopedia is quite another". There is this essay WP:BITECLUB for you to study the other side of the story. WP:COMMONSENSE is not a policy, it's an essay; you will find the hierarchical order of power here. And Five_pillars has no "common sense" in it; you can be sure that WP:V and WP:OR policies will not change radically -to excuse the type of workarounds devised for this and other articles- in next 100 years or so. If you keep gaming the system, you may learn the necessary precautions hard way. Logos (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Logos, I think you are coming close to No personal attacks. Please argue against my views, not against my person. I assure you I am acting in good faith, please could you Assume good faith? I am making my points for the common good. Also, please remember Civility.
 * We might be straying from the point in hand, but I think that Ignore all rules does suggest WP:COMMONSENSE. It is an essay intended to give a deeper understanding of the "Ignore all rules", which at first sight might appear to be contradictory. Why have "Ignore all rules" as a pillar of Wikipedia? It explains the background to the rule, that sometimes policies can be interpreted in a way that seems to go against the interests of the Wikipedia project. Could you explain how you disagree with it?
 * On a personal basis, I'm a little tired of these deletion discussions, where users seem to get bogged down in the minutiae of WP policies, without being able to look at the bigger picture: is deletion in the interests of the Wikipedia project? If the bigger picture is ignored, countless hours are wasted arguing when the fundamental questions are ignored.
 * Logos, if you decide to comment further, please be civil. If you're not, I will probably choose not to respond. I am sorry if I have upset you, but I really think that these sort of things need to be said. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep... and I would oppose a merger with Fringe science... Fringe science is a subset of the broader Fringe theory. Just about every academic (and many non-academic) discipline has its own forms of Fringe. For example, there are Fringe theories that fall within the discipline of History (ie pseudo-history)... and let's not forget conspiracy theory (which can cross multiple academic disciplines)... that too is a subset of Fringe theory. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And where are the sources for such a classification/characterization? I guess you're also aware that what you claim is pure WP:OR. Logos (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep While the article is clearly in need of improvement I agree it is a parent for a range of fringe theories. I think the concept of "Fringe theory" is widely enough employed to warrant an article. It may take some work to parse out the meaning from the vast number of sources that use the term/concept but it is clearly employed by multiple sources. The argument for notability is not really an issue. The contention of synth flies in the face of multiple use by multiple sources. How to compose the article properly to reflect what is meant in a variety of sources/contexts is an editorial matter not an AfD discussion. The argument to merge to fringe science ignores the fact that the term is more widely employed as "fringe theory". - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge This is the same thing as crackpot theory and, per WP:DICDEF, we should cover this stuff together, not having a separate page for each form of words. Andrew (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Crackpot theory does not exit, it links to pseudoscience. Now the problem of merging fringe theories with pseudoscience is that (i) Fringe theories are not necessarily scientific in nature (ii) There is slightly different semantics. Fringe theories are not necessarily untrue, it just means they are believed only by a small number of people. Pseudoscience is generally untrue as usually scientic observations have been made that invalidate it. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have categories when we want show the relations between close concepts (fringe theory appears as some sort of family resemblance concept), Second Quantization (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

*Redirect to pseudoscience This article summarises four other related subtopics which constitute fringe topics as defined within wikipedia. Manys sources discuss each of the four subtopics in detail, but not the concept of fringes on some domain of study in depth from what I can see. They define it, but leave it at that. (suitable for a wikitionary). If the offline sources provide useful material to determine notability, then the revert can be undone and specific citations added. Second Quantization (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Clearly my comment no longer applies since new sources appear to have been found but I'll leave it to others to argue about keep, delete or redirect (I'm on a break), Second Quantization (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per MrBill3. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Reasons why this would be a bad idea. (i) Fringe theories are not necessarily scientific. For example, you could have a fringe theory that an assasination was performed by a government. That is not at all related to science. (ii) WP already has a content guideline based on the idea of fringe theories, Fringe theories. It would be good to have an article that explains the concept behind the guideline, as Fringe theories only explains the WP guideline, not the general meaning. --Mrjulesd (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article clearly talks about more than pseudoscience, and most of the sources (including the Wikipedia policy) use the term to refer to a particular set of related theories, each very clearly defined in their own right: conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific theories, and so on. If sources typically use "fringe theory" to refer to one or as a catch-all for all of these (again, as Wikipedia does), then wouldn't this page better serve as a disambig? Indeed that's the function, more or less, it presently serves: a lead, then sections for each more specific set with links to main articles. The question, I guess, is whether there's enough literature that not only uses the term but which talks about fringe theories in an all-encompassing way that draws connections between the different types or ignores the distinctions entirely. My inclination would be to keep under the assumption there are sufficient such sources, but the article currently doesn't seem to treat the subject that way. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: "wouldn't this page better serve as a disambig?" I don't think so, since there is only one definition of a fringe theory: "an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view." Disambiguity pages are only for when there can be more than one definition of a term, in other words ambiguity, e.g A Good Day has several meanings. But there is none in this case. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In order to comply with minimum requirements of WP:EDIT, you should be able to understand some day that Fringe_theories is WP:OR. Logos (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow you. I'm not saying that Fringe_theories should be a source for Fringe theory. Merely that is suggests notability. WP content guidelines are normally exempt from WP:OR since they only refer to WP policy. --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is exempt from WP:OR; anything that has not been published outside wikipedia is WP:OR and "an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" is WP:OR. If you're not saying that Fringe_theories should be a source for Fringe theory, then you should not refer to any part of WP:FRINGE for the definition of "fringe theory". Logos (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Nothing is exempt from WP:OR" then what about pages like Five pillars? I think it is fair enough to say it is OR. No citations are given. "If you're not saying that Wikipedia:Fringe_theories should be a source for Fringe theory, then you should not refer to any part of WP:FRINGE for the definition of "fringe theory"." You're twisting my words. I didn't use WP:FRINGE as a definition of fringe theory. I merely said that if we have the policy WP:FRINGE, it would be sensible to have an article explaining the meaning of "fringe theory".
 * Logos, unless you can make some better points I won't respond. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether you respond or not; I am responding for general audience, not for you. If any element/material of Five pillars is included in any article in article namespace, then it is WP:OR. You referred to WP:FRINGE by claiming that the definition of "fringe theory" is: "an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view", because this is an element/material from WP:FRINGE, written/devised by wikipedia editors -which makes it WP:OR-. Logos (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a fair question has been raised. Is the above definition of fringe theory a common sense distillation of its use in thousands of sources or is it OR/SYNTH? It would be preferable to have the definition/content of the article based on scholarly opinion. I hope the proposed rewrite resolves this. Beyond that I maintain the opinion that the subject of the article is notable enough and present in enough sources to warrant an article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Is this done now based on the rewrite? I am suitably impressed to consider the argument for deletion as having no reasonable standing in the context of AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since 's complete overhaul of the article, I feel the topic is better defined as more than an umbrella term (as was my concern in my comment above). Still needs some work, clearly, but this is a completely different animal now than it was when AfDed. Kudos for the hard work. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: 's editing is nothing short of amazing, on the article Fringe theory. To delete now would be a tragedy. I have awarded him an editor's barnstar! --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2014 (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.