Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life in infinium


 * 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. Original research.  Sandstein  23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Life in infinium

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia does not publish original research; this is not verifiable from independent reliable sources. The articles are by, the author of the theory they describe; the book referred to does not appear to have been published, see Google Books Amazon, and a search for Infinium finds nothing relevant. JohnCD (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero results for Google web, news, books and scholar searches, and that's for both the protologism title and the book the article draws from. Moreover, the book is not to be found in any library anywhere in the world per Worldcat. Thus, this does indeed appear to be unverifiable, original research. For whatever COI value you take from it, the creator confirms through statements on his user page that the book is his own writing. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep you're welcome to a free E-Copy of the book or you may find it at the link provided in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)


 * Delete both. Even if the subject were notable, these articles would be deletable as essays/promotion for the associated book Mathematical Properties of Infinium.  Baileypalblue (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Single unpublished source. Related article has been flagged: R function. Novangelis (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A clause in the policy allows for non-published and self-published scientific articles as well as thei sources to be included See below Verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)


 * Strong delete all three: Pseudoscience by someone tooting his own horn. If the creator wants this to be on WP, he'll have to publish his book and hope that it generates a following. Politizer talk / contribs 17:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Again, there is a clause for non-published/Self-published articles in Wikipedia Verifiability. You are however welcome to start a following if you feel the need to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)


 * Delete - classic example of original research. Scog (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no clause against original research if it meets the Wikipedia criteria of Verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, there is - see WP:NOR. Note that this is a separate issue from that of verifiability; even if material is verifiable, if it is not discussed in any reliable sources, it should not be included in Wikipedia. If you want this to be kept, you'll have to find some reliable, independent sources that discuss it. Scog (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete probably was more appropriate. Timneu22 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Closing admin should note also the existence of the following redirects to these articles created by the same user: Life in Infinium and Rfuntcion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't find any evidence that the book described exists.  Searches for the author's name only turn up stories about somebody of that name being arrested for sending threatening mail. JulesH (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes you can. A free E-Copy is even Available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)


 * Delete all. Unverifiable original research. -Atmoz (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. You're welcome to try the R Function on any number you can think of divided by any prime you want if that's verification enough for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. I can access the book's home page at MPOI Home  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (R Function) The page does not involve any original research violation and there is no clause about a need for search results in yahoo or google in the policy as the objection suggests. The Book in which the findings are published is available on the internet and though this is not a clause in the cited rule of the objection (five pillars of wikipedia), it can be acquired if that remedies to the objection. The site is: RFunction Homepage In addition, as far as Scientitic formulae are concerned, it isn't enough to cite WIKI policy to delete an article, you have to demonstrate that the formula displayed is wrong. In this case you have to mathematically prove that it is since it is a math formula.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable promotional pseudoscience. Tim Ross  (talk)  16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Non-notable promotional pseudoscience. Tim Ross   (talk)  16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not sure what you mean by pseudoscience. the formulae for both the R function and the theory of infinium are provided in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Here is what it says on the COI
 * Strong Keep I have to address the COI clause that everybody thinks applies here for some reason.

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

Examples of these types of material include:


 * 1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).


 * 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
 * 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

The R function and infinium articles are not advertising links, or personal web site links, semi-personal photos or any of the above. They're simply scientific theories set forth as described in the books (the links to which are provided). And the R function is provided with proof I might add to those who understand Math. The content is CLEARLY not COI material and deleting it won't do more than deprive the public of access to it. I value editor input, they keep the articles sharp and the writer from straying off course. But all of this seems like repetitive COI that nobody can show applies. I'm for editing but not for keeping some trigger happy editors from getting riled up. Sorry guys, I think the articles should stay, until someone can disprove the R function or point a scientific flaw in the theory of infinium. When so, I'm all ears. Ramssiss (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramssiss (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * MORE INFO AVAILABLE If it'llhelp matters any, I'm willing to provide an E-Copy to anyone willing to read it, just to address the pseudo-science part. It also will help some people form a opinion rather than a baseless attack on the article or its author.
 * Comment - Mr Ramssiss, please read Wikipedia's key, non-optional, policy on Verifiability, which includes:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source;
 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy;
 * (because anyone can pay to have a book published) ...it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books.
 * and, from the policy No Original Research:
 * If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic.
 * Links to your own web-sites do not count as "reliable, third-party published sources."
 * JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep on Comment I read it again at your request. It clearly says:

Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.

Self-published work by non-experts may also be used in limited circumstances, as described below.

The opertative word in what you quoted being "USUALLY" not always! After that it adds

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reason to doubt its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources;

If you can point to where my articles are against what I just quoted in YOUR SOURCE, then I'd be closer to agreeing with you. But for now, I'm afraid you're quoting what should make you give up your deletion Request, John. In addition, the sources were provided in the form of a website that provides the contents of the book as well as other info for those looking for verifiability (even if anyone can put up a website). For those needing more than that, a free E-Copy of the book was made avaiblable. It doesn't get much more verifiable than that and the source doesn't get anymore reliable than the text itself. Finally the only the ground you may have in contesting (not deleting) the article is if "there is reason to doubt its authenticity" which makes me revert to what I said earlier. You're welcome to point a flaw in the theory of infinium or disprove the R function, at which point I'll be obliged to change or omit whatever you can prove. This is science authorship after all, and you need more than misquotations to make a point. I'm sure an editor like yourself can agree. Ramssiss (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Staunch Keep on Comment Someone objected to there being redirects for "Rfunction" and "Life in infinium". "Rfunction" is kin in search to R Function, and "Life in infinium" is life in infinium. I'm not sure what Timneu22 is objecting to on this one nor why he thinks speedy delete is more appropriate than Delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)


 * Delete Rfunction? Rhubarb more likely. Peridon (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep again Bon Appetit on your Rhubarb. If you feel like doing some Number Theory afterwards, you can read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The guidelines you cite all argue for deletion. The burden of proof lies with you.  Unless you can demonstrate that this is an exception, the thing to do would be whatever is done usually &mdash; in this case, delete.  The self-published work is not from an "established expert... whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".  The articles also fail on notability, because "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."  There is no requirement to show that a formula is wrong to delete it.  While it is true that 3+4=7, it does not merit an article.
 * You point out the requirement that "the article is not based primarily on such sources", but since it is wholly based on a single self-published source, you have argued for delete.
 * As for your claim that the R function link is not advertising, why is there a link called "Purchase"? Novangelis (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep on Comment I'm afraid you're misreading the clauses. Here they are again:

'''Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations...

and

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...'''

There is no "burden of proof" as you seem to have gathered. The only proof involved is if you can find one against the theories cited in the material. This again makes me revert to what I said earlier "You're welcome to point a flaw in the theory of infinium or disprove the R function, at which point I'll be obliged to change or omit whatever you can prove. This is science authorship after all, and you need more than misquotations to make a point. I'm sure an editor like yourself can agree." Besides, both theories were scientifically proven and you're welcome to the article you've taken issue with to verify them numerically if you haven't done that yet. As for why is there a link on the article. Well humorously enough, there's a link there because people were complaining that there wasn't one (unlike you). The purchase only points you to outlets like Amazon and such.you can't purchase the book on the site as you should have seen.

Then there's the curious statement that the article is about "3+4=7". I think even the guy who mistook it for Rhubarb knows that it is pretty faraway from that!

'''Finally and as I said many times before I value editorial input. But I need to stress that the discussion forum is not a venue to level personal attacks on people or articles you dislike or for users to play cat and mouse games with authors by coming up with side issues all the time (like you're doing Novangelis). I addressed all of your issues convincingly and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Being wrong happens. Now get on with life.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Look at the reviews of the book on its own website. Need I say more? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Yes you do. you can start by telling us why you're opting for delete and if you really wanna impress us you can point to what's wrong with the theory of infinium or the R function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)


 * Comment Err, I think I'm missing something there. Are there any reviews on that page? Or are they like the Emperor's clothes, only visible to the worthy?

Peridon (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be me. I'm getting nothing on the 'Author' or 'Media' pages either. All the others work. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the absence of reviews is RH's point. JohnCD (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I could be wrong, but I make it 10 Keeps either unsigned or signed by or for the apparent author. Is that a record? Peridon (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Could be! What's your issue with the articles again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)
 * Reply Total lack of notability. Classical pseudoscience with no peer review. Total lack of third party sources. Total lack of relevant relevant publication experience by the author of a self-published work. Original research. Spam.Novangelis (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply A single line from WP:NOR sums it up: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic." JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Ramssiss, I want to clear up one thing. You may have been led astray by some of the comments directly or tangentially referring to the worth of the material by describing it as pseudoscience and otherwise commenting on its intrinsic merit. You keep arguing the material's value and asking us to disprove it in some manner, in the absence of which it should be kept. You're missing the point, though I don't blame you for that. But let me clarify that issue. If Wikipedia was somehow a going concern in 1905, and some patent clerk named Albert Einstein tried to first publish a scientific theory on a wikipedia page entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," we would rightfully be arguing to delete that article because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, only publishing material already the subject of reliable independent secondary sources. We do not announce new things here. That is not the role of an encyclopedia. That paper would be original research if attempted to be published here, would properly be deleted, and this would be so even in hindsight, today, when that paper's place in the history of science was fully known.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * E-COPY Here are the E-Copies of the mathematical Properties of infinium and the R function and Number Theory. Pls Keep in mind that this is coyrighted material provided for the purpose of this discussion and for critique (not for sharing). This should put the valid issues of pseudoscience and existence of the material to rest. As for the invalid ones, I think I've quoted this from the terms of Verifiability some three times now from when I was discussing it with JohnCD and Novangelis. People should read it before adding a comment that has already been voiced. Here they are again:

'''Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes''' be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source. Self-published work by non-experts may also be used in limited circumstances, as described below.

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reason to doubt its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources;

And again John you keep reading just what you want in the sources you quote. In your source WP:OR you should have read: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

About Fuhghettaboutit's comment. I get your point everybit and I appreciate it a bunch. But I strongly disagree with it. You seem to be of the opinion that new material is not allowed on Wikipedia regardless of its quality or validity. And you are just wrong on that point. Here again are the policy quotes:

'''Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an ....

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, ....

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia,...''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ramssiss but you are not parsing or contextualizing any of those policy quotes. They go exactly against your position and you're rationalizing them into something they don't mean at all. The first has to do with verifying information in an article, not notability of the topic itself, and it is an exception to the rule, with threshold requirements listed, which you do not meet—you are not an established expert; your work has not been published by reliable third-party sources; the second is also not about notability but about inclusion of information and is also expressly an exception to the rule with threshold requirements listed, which you do not meet—the material is irrelevant to your notability and it is exactly unduly self-serving (it begs the question; you are trying to show your own notability by reference to your own work's existence); the third is as stark as can be, and you have to cut it short and use pretzel logic to avoid what it actually says: "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." All the section means is that authors with specialized knowledge whose works are reliable third party sources in relation to the topic at hand, can carefully cite their own works.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete All = Not notable, not verifiable. Perhaps if it some day gets the cultural penetration that Time Cube has gotten, it will deserve a mention.  Note to the closing admin: You probably already noticed this, but Ramssiss has "voted" keep about a dozen times in this discussion, mostly unsigned comments.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-published work is acceptable... Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information... This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their ...
 * Response to Comment = Fuhghettaboutit, the policies I cited mean absolutely none of what you said. In fact they mean exactly opposite of what you claim because you'd have to try hard to believe that:

mean as opposed to what they say as (in your own words): we would rightfully be arguing to delete that article because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, only publishing material already the subject of reliable independent secondary sources. We do not announce new things here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)


 * Keep All = Cottonmouth, the material is notable and verifiable as you can read many times above. As for voting Keep a dozen times, I have to respond to issues raised even when they're of no merit or just repetitive like yours. They're not votes, and this is not an election as you seem to reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)
 * First: No, it's not notable or verifiable, as everyone here has been trying desperately to explain to you. Second: I put "voted" in quotes, which means that I don't consider this an election.  Now, I'm done talking to you because you're too hard for me to get through to.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion Parameters - NOTE TO ALL Please to all, the page is getting flooded by arguments that the material is not verifiable, notable or that it violates WIKI verifiability policy. If you're of that opinion please refer to one of the many times this has been argued above instead of adding your opinion in the hope that it counts as a "vote". IT DOESN'T and it will only trigger me to repeat the same answer and sources as above. But more importantly this is keeping the valid arguments from getting proper attention. The books have been made available. If you read them and have an issue about their authenticity or other that you think matters in our discussion, please do bring them up so they can be debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down, man. You're making yourself seem completely unhinged.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

'''Not notable, not verifiable. Perhaps if it some day gets the cultural penetration that Time Cube has gotten, it will deserve a mention.''' ... You probably already noticed this, but Ramssiss has "voted" keep about a dozen times in this discussion, mostly unsigned comments.
 * Unhinged and calm down! Here is your previous "relevant comment":

Me, unhinged and Calm Down!? Come on...
 * I made arguments from policy and commented on something that the closing administrator would need to know, all in a rational "tone of voice." The ellipsis that you added removes the phrase bringing the final sentence to the closing admin's attention.  I'm not sure what your problem is with this.  Well...no...I do know what your problem is.  You're overexcited and need a nap.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note for closing Upon resolution, Infinium should be restored to the redirect as it was, prior to the article: .Novangelis (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Note you're trying too hard Novangelis and this discussion is not about redirects. Why don't you just let it go Novangelis? Gee...


 * Strong Delete. Most of the keeps simply do not address the problems. An article entirely based upon OR, with no indication of notability from independant sources. The effort made in argueming could have been used to improve the article, the fact that it wasn't indicated improvment is not possible, becasue the problems highlighted by the nominator are insurmountable (ir, there are no RSs).Yobmod (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. As mentionned many times before, the concerns of the nominator have been addressed more than once with the proper policy quotes to boot. Please refer to anyone of them as opposed to "VOTING" on this page. Other than that you don't seem to bring anything new to the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 21:46, 22 January 2009 (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.