Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holographic Principle Theory of Mind


 * 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, principly as original research. AK Radecki  17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Holographic Principle Theory of Mind

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research. One of the two references can't be found on the linked website; the other is "in press". Contains many questionable claims without references. Author of the two sources is also the author of the article. —Keenan Pepper 05:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Keep  I had at least two psych professors who were enamored of the theory (though, granted, I attended a university with a reputation for embracing the weird), and I can think of a couple sources right off the top of my head that could almost immediately improve the article to WP:V compliance if the article writer went through their bibliographies.  A lot of the popularization of the theory comes from the transpersonal psychology work of Stanislav Grof, and his book The Holotropic Mind; along with David Talbot's The Holotropic Universe; would be sufficient to source the article to the minimum required by WP:N and WP:V.   --Dynaflow   babble  06:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Aha! But it doesn't use those sources because the original author of the article seems to be attempting to claim credit for the theory.  It is his work that is cited.  The article is salvagable, but it requires major work.  I'll put it on my watchlist and, when I get a spare couple of hours, I'll see if I can improve its academic-honesty factor.   --Dynaflow   babble  06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have found that Wikipedia already has a decent article on holonomic brain theory, and the only thing we'd suffer a net loss on if this article was deleted would be a bunch of original research at odds with the letter and the spirit of WP:OR (not to mention WP:COI).  --Dynaflow   babble  06:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has grossly incorrect references to the holographic principle of quantum gravity. The psycological / phylosophical part is a mixture of original research and uncited, out of context old stuff ( for example). If the article is to be kept anyway, any relation to physics other than a vague analogy must be omitted, and proper citing of old stuff must be given. Dan Gluck 14:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The proposed deletion are addressed as follows:
 * 1) the link to a reference has been modified so that it leads directly to the reference, which has a full and complete description of all of the information presented in the article.
 * 2) A reference has been made to holonomic brain theory. However, if the individual reads the article and reference carefully he will see that there is no "academic-honesty" issue as the theory is completely different from holonomic brain theory, and none of its content is taken from that theory.
 * 3) The article does not have grossly incorrect reference to the Holographic Principle. The basic framework was established recently with Jacob Bekenstein, one of the leading experts on the physics of the Holographic Priniple.  I have checked the link and it reference and it refers to a completely different theory based on David Bohm's holographic physics and not the Holographic Principle.  It is not "out of context old stuff," but a completely new theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.224.249 (talk • contribs)  — 63.207.224.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment That's largely the point.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is not the place to publicize new theories you might be working on (I am assuming, based on your contributions, that you are User:Mark Germine, M.D.).  Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, and that is a hard-and-fast policy set for WP by the Foundation.  That is why I referenced the Grof and Talbot books above, rather than journal articles, because, as derivative sources, they wouldn't require someone to synthesize new knowledge to write an encyclopedia article.  If your theory attains notability, you can rest assured that someone else will come along and write an article on it for you, and spare you problems with Wikipedia's guidelines on original research and conflict of interest.   --Dynaflow   babble  16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding the physics part, it seems to me this is not your field of expertise. It IS mine. The holographic principle, proposed by 't Hooft following Jacob Bekenstein, is a conjecture that gravitational systems are dual to non-gravitational systems with one dimension less; The entropy of highly gravitational state is thus proportional to the area of the system, rather than its volume. The brain is not a highly gravitational system, so this is completely unrelated to your discussion. Dan Gluck 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * RE: Brain as gravitational system not subject to Holographic Principle: Not according to Bekenstein, he says that the principle applies to the most fundamental field within the neuron, through many levels to the level of the whole neuron and from thence to the organism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.224.249 (talk • contribs)


 * Whether or not the article is incorrect is irrelevant to the conversation here. Articles that are wrong can be fixed, but articles based on original research, as this article seems to be, cannot be because they are not admissible to the encyclopedia per WP:POLICY.  AfD is for discussion of whether or not an article should appear in English Wikipedia; arguments on the veracity of claims belongs on the article's Talk page.   --Dynaflow   babble  19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The existing, peer-reviewed, published article is referenced. It is not "original" in the sense that it contains anything that hasn't already been published. Does this mean that all published original research would be excluded? Wikipedia is full of such material. I don't see this as an exclusion. There is no new information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.224.249 (talk • contribs)


 * IP-user, please sign your posts. I have been doing it for you thus far, but you can do it as well by typing four tildes in a row at the end of your post ( ~ ).  The sig lines help us maintain the chronology of the discussion.  As for the original-research thing, have you read WP:OR, which I linked to earlier?  The article reads like a journal article abstract, which would also qualify as original research.  Wikipedia is not the place to publish scientific results, but that seems to be exactly what you (again, assuming you're User:Mark Germine, M.D., just not signed in) are doing in this article, and on top of that, you're using yourself as the sole source.  As an academic, you should probably know intuitively why this is raising so many red flags content-wise, and once you look through the rationale of our policy against publishing original research, you'll understand that concern of ours too, and perhaps be better able to address it.  --Dynaflow   babble  20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the article to its bare essentials and shortened it considerably. It is not in the form of an "abstract" at all. The link is to a peer-reviewed, professional, publication. The article has been presented without any reference to articles in press. Take a look at the revised version. I am not publishing any "new results." All of what is in the current version has been verified as valid in terms of physics. (&lt;Mark Germine, M.D.&gt;Mgermine 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)&lt;Mark Germine, M.D.&gt;) — Mgermine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - A single paper published in a journal does not fulfill citation guidelines, nor does it establish notability. Further, the only citation is a paper written byMgermine, bringing conflict of interest into play, not to mention original research. -- Kesh 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the trimmed article. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Even trimmed, the article only has a single citation which is written by the article submitter. No establishment of notability, and a lot of conflict of interest. -- Kesh 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Conflict of interest, original research, and woefully inadeqaute sourcing (what sort of journal is that anyway?).  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The journal is a sub-page from this guy's website. This is straight-up big time original research. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Check it out: The journal reference cited bills itself as an "e-journal" and the associate editor is...you guessed it...Mark Germine! &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:23, 31 May 2007 (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.