Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fukushima Paradox


 * 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. I'm going to ignore the 7 day rule on AFDs and close this. It's clear this is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not publish theories in the scientific community; that's what scientific journals are for. We cover topics that are already published and can be attributed to secondary sources. This AFD has turned into an argument between the author (and 'inventor') and the Wikipedia community. No Wikipedia policy arguments have been presented at all for inclusion and now this discussion contains a legal threat. There is no need to play along with this user anymore as they've been blocked for the legal threat. v/r - TP 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fukushima Paradox

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is WP:OR pure and simple. The theory has been created by the "science fiction writer Michael Anthony Norton" and the page has been created by a user named "MikeAnthNort". No independent sources are offered to show this theory has become notable, and net searches come up with nothing about Norton's theory. Michitaro (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a notable theory which should not de discarded from Wikipedia just because it has not yet been covered by traditional media.  A reference to literature on quantum physics is included and it is intended that this entry will be further developed with additional references.   Wikipedia pages on asynchrony, fission, and the disasters in Japan are also linked.   Why does michitaro put "science fiction writer Michael Anthony Norton" in quotes?  That is a fact, pure and simple. --MikeAnthNort (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A theory that "has not yet been covered" is by definition not notable on Wikipedia. Please consult WP:GNG. Note that this theory has not even been covered by non-traditional media on the net. Adding sources from physics does not affirm the notability of the theory itself. In fact, it here is only evidence that the article has pursued original research in violation of WP:OR. Adding wikilinks also does nothing to prove notability. Finally, I put your name and title in quotes simply because I was quoting the article. Michitaro (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article reads like a piece of fantastic fiction advanced by a single book, not a serious encyclopedia topic. Also, the only reference is to a single quote that is only tangentially relevant, without any on the actual topic. Chris857 (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added an additional reference, citing relative phases of nonlocal exchanges of variables, particularly with regard to Time Symmetric Quantum Mechanics.  More references to be provided - there is an abundance of research on this.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you carefully read WP:OR. Merely adding more citations from science articles that themselves do not mention the Fukushima Paradox will not only do nothing to satisfy WP:GNG, they only show that you are engaging in WP:OR. You must provide independent reliable sources that talk about the Fukushima Paradox itself, not aspects that you are using to advance your theory. Michitaro (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article contains unsourced, non-notable, fringe, original research that is patent nonsense, and the author has a conflict of interest. The references have very little relevance to the content of the article. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 *  Keep .  Michitaro, Chris857, and CodeTheorist:  What is your political motivation behind suppressing a valid theory from Wikipedia?  I just posted this yesterday - I did not send out a press release - how am I supposed to draw quotes from others in the scientific community re: the Fukushima Paradox when itself has a life of approximately one day?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeAnthNort (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)  — MikeAnthNort (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Who besides M.A.Norton says it's a "valid theory"? —Tamfang (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * !Vote of article author changed below to "Delete", so struick through "Keep" here. I believes this means that there are no "Keep" !votes at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * From the GNG: Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.
 * To MikeAnthNort, WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Chris857 (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To MikeAnthNort: Wikipedia is not a place for announcing a new theory. It is an encyclopedia for recording established knowledge. What has not been established does not belong here. You should wait until it is: WP:TOOSOON. Finally, while it is true WP:GNG states that "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft", it is merely underlying the fact that articles on notable subjects might not yet show all the existing sources to prove notability. Instead of deleting such articles, we on Wikipedia must find those existing sources. Your case does not fit this because you have not shown those sources exist. Being a "draft" does not mean the article can sit on Wikipedia for years until new sources eventually appear to support it. Michitaro (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To Chris857: a theory is "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena". It is not rather an invention or story in the context to which you are attempting to place it.
 * To Michitaro: I assure you this entry will not "sit...for years" before pointing to additional sources relative to the phenomena described. It has only been a day! --MikeAnthNort (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you cannot predict the future and assure us it will eventually have reliable sources that will prove notability, it is best you announce this theory elsewhere and wait for sources to accumulate there. Wikipedia again is not a place to announce theories. Michitaro (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a notable theory because it draws a correlation between the field of big data & virtual particles and nuclear physics.  It is also notable because it implies a re-cast net of responsibility for research and lessons learned from the 3/11 disaster.  Many people lost their lives because of the disaster and many more have had their lives displaced.   A theory purporting the source of the disaster even if it mitigates the assumptions of geophysics next to big data and quantum physics has a reasonable place within the Wikipedia canon.  --MikeAnthNort (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it is clear you still don't understand the definition of notability on Wikipedia. It is not a factor of such subjective criteria as a subject's supposed importance or ability to explain things, but of whether it has "significant coverage" from "reliable" "sources" that are "independent of the subject"--that is, whether there is proof that others think it is worthy of attention. You can argue all you want that you think it is important but that will do nothing. You must find independent sources that think that. You have not done that, so it is clear the article does not pass WP:GNG and should be deleted. Michitaro (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a Google search of "Fukushima Paradox", and the only results that are not on Wikipedia refer to more of a paradox of nuclear power and its pros and cons. I think this topic may be unsourceable, except to User:MikeAnthNort. Chris857 (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the definition of 'theory'. How has this one been used to make testable predictions? —Tamfang (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox it. I guess I need sources. Do anonymous sources work? --MikeAnthNort (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, please! Obvious hoax Consider: Essentially, the virtual particles behaved as a natural defense mechanism against the unstable, over-heated reactors. Speedy. EEng (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy deletion tag, because it's not a blatant hoax, and probably not a hoax. That someone promotes a theory that's wrong doesn't make the article a hoax.  The article is probably a faithful and fair representation of a wrong speculation.  Normally I'd PROD it, but this AfD should clear it up. Wily D  08:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're way too forgiving. The author says below he knows the idea to be absurd; therefore he's perpetrating a hoax.  In addition it's clear he's doing so in the interest of self-promotion.  There's no reason to indulge such behavior at the expense of other editors' time and attention. EEng (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * EEng: That's defamation to call it a hoax. How is that intended to deceive or defraud?--MikeAnthNort (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that the universe provides "a natural defense mechanism against the unstable, over-heated reactors" is absurd; if you understand this then you are perpetrating a hoax. Or if you wish, you can persist in claiming you actually believe this baloney -- thus implying something else. Take your pick.  EEng (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be absurd but that does not make it deceptive or an element of fraud. Systems have capabilities to adapt to unusual circumstances in order to adhere to conservation of energy and other classical laws.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By admitting your ideas are absurd, you're admitting they constitute a hoax. This debate remain on record indefinitely and it's is not doing your reputation as a science fiction writer (or science anything for that matter) any good. EEng (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You call it an absurd hoax.  I call it a theory quite plausible considering the introduction of new processing systems placed upon the fabric of the global information grid in very recent years.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fun time's over. Back to Area 54 with you before the director is forced to order more electroshock. EEng (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say good night but your choice to digress from the topic strikes me as quite immature. Is this how Wiki works?  --MikeAnthNort (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. It has no media coverage outside this page.  The creator is not notable either.  Wikipedia is not for promoting new scientific theories, whether fringe or mainstream, true, false or nonsensical. Still, it's livened up my Monday morning, so thanks for that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete no coverage in independent secondary sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The question is not 'Is this theory bollocks?' but 'Is this theory notable?'. The few mentions of the term on Google (searching with a 'minus Wikipedia' filter) are on places like blogspot or appear irrelevant. Not good enough. That the theory seems to me to be bollocks is not relevant, as there can be notable loads of bollocks. (If a virtual particle carries vast amounts of energy and travels out over the ocean, it's quite simply not a virtual particle. They only appear in calculations, and can loosely be regarded in the same way as 'holes' in solid state electronics or the square root of -1 in maths - a way of getting your equations to work... Peridon (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
 * By the way, I would suggest that Mr Norton (if it indeed be he) should read WP:COI, our 'conflict of interest' policy - editing concerning you and yours. It's not 'forbidden', but it is 'not recommended'. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: COI, There is a greater community interest of concern rather than self-interest here, but point taken. --MikeAnthNort (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the greater community interest of concern, you should have no trouble publishing in a more appropriate medium. —Tamfang (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep! Copernicus & Galileo had theories that were considered absurd. Be careful so quickly to judge just because it is unorthodox. -- unsigned comment by MikeAnthNort
 * That's right, and their ideas were also suppressed, just like yours are being suppressed right here. By doing so we're helping you along the road to Intellectual Immortality. So why resist?  In a moment we'll show you the instruments, and if after that you would please submit yourself to house arrest for several decades your martyrdom will be complete.  After you're dead and gone we'll celebrate your genius.  Trust us.  EEng (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the theories of Copernicus & Galileo were proven true hundreds of years before Wikipedia existed. That is not the case here. It is also a clear Fallacy to suggest that since those theories that were initially discounted were later proven to be true that this theory is true as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.74.113 (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to grant that Mr Norton may not have intended this as a hoax, per se. However, Mr Norton, please realize that you have a conflict of interest. Also realize that notability cannot be self-declared. It must be externally bestowed. For something to be notable, others must have taken note of it. Since this is Mr Norton's theory, Mr Norton cannot be the one to declare that it is notable. I strongly recommend that this article be deleted. DS (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about it not being a hoax (there is a wide gap between 'Original Research' and 'Intent to Deceive' - this being OR). I also agree that the author of anything here cannot at the same time be the source proving its notability. And had Wikipedia been around back then, we might well have had articles on the theories of Copernicus and Galileo - because they stirred up a fair bit of notoriety. (Please note. everyone, that notoriety is correctly used there, unlike the majority of cases I see here.) If it can be shown in reliable independent sources WP:RS that this theory has attracted reasonably widespread coverage, I'll happily change my !vote. Peridon (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate much of this feedback - learning about the Wiki process. It will be difficult for me to find the appropriate sources as the ones I would like to speak to about this remain anonymous. Sub-electronic impressions of industrial system processing instructions remain "afloat in the ethers" and I find their emergent interactions upon the macroscopic scale fascinating and noteworthy. That's the crux of the Fukushima Paradox.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Contribute Does anyone here want to contribute to make the entry legit for Wiki?--MikeAnthNort (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict):It's quite a different place once you get behind the scenery - the carefully neutral articles. Here is a world of passions and daggers in the dark... As to sources, ones you can speak to are unlikely to be independent and reliable. And anonymous is right out. What we need are ones that are published. But not in blogs, forums or wikis (even us), or Facebook and similar. Self-published or anon editing is not considered reliable. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We do try to rescue things - but I've not managed to find anything in the way of sources. I'm sure the others here have looked too. Believe me, we do try. I've even rescued an article about a rapper by adding references. (Unlike most rappers we get here, he was notable...) Peridon (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can second the opinion that while AfD can sometimes be a brutal experience, there are not a small number of cases where other users rescue an article that, while poorly put together and not immediately showing notability, could be saved because the references were out there. I've done that a number of times myself (again, that is what "draft" means in WP:GNG as discussed above). We're not all a mean bunch. I'm afraid, though, that my searches of the net for "Fukushima Paradox" have not found anything that can be used to save this article (that's why I nominated it for AfD). Perhaps there are articles in print that are not available on the net, but that's increasingly less likely these days. There's thus nothing we can do about this unless one of us decides to write an article about this in some reputable journal or newspaper. Again, I think it is best for you to announce this theory in some other space than Wikipedia, argue for it there, create some notability, and hope someone else can create an article again here (as others have said, you should not be doing this yourself).Michitaro (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It says this article is an Orphan. Is there any point for me to place a link to it in "See Also" sections of other pages? Also, what is the timeline for an AfD page? How long do I have to expect a contributor to modify the page for possible inclusion? --MikeAnthNort (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for unpublished material per WP:NOT.Curb Chain (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifically WP:NOT.Curb Chain (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note We have talk page discussion from another editor who feels the page should be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

--MikeAnthNort (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — MikeAnthNort (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. CurbChain, are you referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fukushima_Paradox?
 * Yes. By your participation on the talk page there too, you are publishing your idea on Wikipedia.  I suggest that you as the author request the page to be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as unsourced fringe OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC).

Consider. Perhaps mention of Stuxnet can save this article. When you tear open a pillow atop a mountain, all of its feathers scatter in the wind and some are not recoverable. Analogy aside, you are dealing with Pulse Logic Controller components on the open seas of the internet directly related to industrial systems. Just as each of our DNA is 99.9% the same, you can say the same about code in cyberspace. It's a grand mix and all of the consequences of such ought to be considered. The writers of Stuxnet keep anonymity so it's impossible for me to get in touch with them. Otherwise I would try and develop this article further. If you can hold off deleting for now, I would like to find an authority to modify it for inclusion.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If your point here is that your hypothesis has value, Wikipedia is not the place to argue it. If your point is that a human artifact designed for sabotage supports the existence of malevolent time-traveling particles, go back to bed. —Tamfang (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete OR, COI and self-promotion. Unsalvageable. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Gandalf. It's neither COI nor self-promotion. It's a THEORY.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a "theory" whose only demonstrated value is to bring publicity (in a limited environment) to its author. —Tamfang (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure where the feathers come in (in my garden, it usually means a sparrowhawk has visited, and she's had another pigeon), but I'm afraid we can't publish your theory UNTIL you produce sources that fit in with WP:RS. I would remind everyone that this is not a public utility or free webspace - it's an encyclopaedia. Magazines like New Scientist, Nature and Scientific American publish new things. We record things that already have been discussed and noted or published reliably. Stuxnet to me is a worm, and I can't see how the writers of it could be of any relevance even in the unlikely event of us finding out who they were. I'm not sure (again...) of what you mean by "an authority to modify it for inclusion". Here, the 'authorities' are no more able than any other editor to modify articles and our 'authority' is in areas of administration not content. If you mean an authority on the subject of nuclear physics, if their comments are verifiably published in a reliable place (not a blog), they might help. If the article goes down, it can be re-done at a later date - provided the sources are present. Bringing the theory to the attention of the world is your job, and we are unable to help with that. As original research, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a medium containing articles on various topics covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject. Nothing more, nothing less. To subvert tacit knowledge would be a disservice by Wikipedia. I will write to the publications Peridon mentioned, though it's disappointing to receive calls for deletion of my article because some here are in disagreement with the theory.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Should I write articles about my incomplete font-generating software and my unfinished novel? —Tamfang (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my case at least, and it ought to be in the cases of the others (hint, hint...), the call for deletion is down to the lack of notability - OUR definition of notability as laid out and discussed until consensus was reached. We are discussing things here. Any editor may give an opinion. (New accounts that only edit here and nowhere else are called single purpose accounts, and the closing admin will probably attach little weight to their posts.) If there were evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources, I'd be arguing to keep - even though I think the theory is as full of holes as an Emmentaler cheese. We have articles about Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, and the 'fact' that man has never walked on the Moon. All rhubarb (with no custard), but well documented. When this is, try again and leave me a message. If you've got widespread coverage in RS, I'll defend it. No matter what I think of it. I would suggest New Scientist of the three named - they notoriously (in terms of scientific orthodoxy) published Rupert Sheldrake's theories of morphic resonance and formative causation. Richard Dawkins refuses to even look at Sheldrake's evidence. However, they do tend to list references at the end of their articles, as do we, so you may still need some outside coverage. Worth a go - stamps aren't dear and emails are free. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, my time is up here - Delete!--MikeAnthNort (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is hilarious. Delete as original research with no indication of notability or coverage in reliable sources, created by a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest. Also, it's made up. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article says that the theory was suggested by "Michael Anthony Norton" the "science fiction writer". The opnly person of this description I can find is someone who has one book to his credit, self-published,  so this is not a notabale person making the suggestion.  Take into account that the article was written by MikeAnthNort, has no real references, cites nobody else who thinks this idea has merit, and what you've got left are multiple violations of the whole alphabet soup: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:FRINGE etc, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Writer's Showcase Press" was a new one on me - and I couldn't work out whether it was self-pub or 'legit'. (Often the names used at Amazon are to disguise involvement by lulu and similar, but this name seems to have issued at least 21 books by different authors - latest being 2002 - http://www.jacketflap.com/writers-showcase-press-publisher-7512 but the Amazon blurb for Norton's book doesn't fit with the children's book image given there.) Peridon (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - hoax, original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * JoshuSasori, it's not a hoax and anyone who deems it as such is facilitating defamation and facing legal consequences.


 * Yes, Writer's Showcase is a division of iUniverse, a print-on-demand publisher.  "A Line in the Sand" was published in 2002.  --MikeAnthNort (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that your comment above is a violation of our no legal threats policy. You need to withdraw it, or it is likely that you will be blocked from editing until you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of mentioning your book is that being the author of a single self-published book does not make you an expert on the subject of the article in question, and therefore there's no way that it is notable through that expertise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2012 (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.