Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georeactor


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Georeactor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The Georeactor conjecture is pseudoscience, contradicting established facts (not just theories) in geochemistry, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and other branches of science. This is not a notable scientific topic. None of the sources given meet Wikipedia's standards. Cherlin (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling this pseudoscience is a stretch - when the theory's main detractor in the scientific community (per the article) refers to it as "not complete nonsense, but ... highly unlikely", that places it squarely in the realm of a real, testable (though very likely wrong) scientific theory - whereas I would expect any reputable scientist to refer to actual pseudoscience (e.g. the Wikipedia article on Water Memory, which is not being considered for deletion) as "complete nonsense", period. --75.173.212.22 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The following cited references might meet Wikipedia's standards: a. Journal of Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity b. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science c. Naturwissenschaften (a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Springer on behalf of several learned societies}. 2. Like Galileo's and Einstein's, many scientific theories have contradicted 'established scientific facts.' 3. In the article itself, the Criticism section notes that an experiment by personnel at a credentialed institution might validate the theory.Wordlessw (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is psuedoscience (or fringe theory), because it describes ideas that depart significantly from the established science in geochemistry, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and other related fields. This is a minority view . This topic probably does not merit an entire article to discuss its theories as if these really have validity WP:FRINGE. Actually, probably, the best place for only a section pertaining to this topic is the article about the disaster movie entitled The Core. Please note that J. Marvin Herndon was an adviser to the studio for this particular movie . Also his paper was published the same week as the movie came out. Furthermore, it appears as though he was not the first or only person to advance and publish such a theory . So it is probably inaccurate to mention only his name in the intro and discuss only his paper WP:UNDUE. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to closing Admin It appears this nomination was never properly listed in the AfD Log, please consider giving it a week from my adding it to the current log before closing. Monty  845  19:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fringy theory that even Fox Mulder would consider unlikely. And, frankly, if you have to trot out the "Galileo and Einstein contradicted 'scientific facts' argument for want of anything better, that's a case against you, not for. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many articles on Wikipedia on "pseudoscientific" subjects. Besides, the claim that a subject is "pseudoscience" is really a matter of opinion. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's the opinion of any and all reputable scientists that this is psuedoscience. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:FRINGE. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:15, 14 October 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.