Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object


 * 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. Although I gave less weight to the SPAs, a rough consensus developed to keep the article, albeit in a drastically rewritten form. I will add a NPOV disputed tag to the bevy of others on the article, and add it to my watchlist. I suggest others might want to do the same. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object

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

This is a fringe theory of dubious notability. Almost all of the references are preprints or papers from the theory's four proponents (Mitra, Leiter, Robertson, Schild), as are most of the papers citing those works. I strongly suspect that most of the article was written by one or more of those proponents (most likely Mitra, whose name appears in the edit history) as a means to gain publicity for the theory.

Mitra's preprints attempt to disprove the well-established result that black holes are predicted by general relativity, but his "proofs" are rooted in a misunderstanding of basic calculus (for example, see Eq. 4.1 in and the sentence following it) which has led him to confuse the superluminal motion of an abstract surface with superluminal motion of actual matter. For this reason his views are unlikely to gain a significant following in the wider physics community.

I realize that just because the idea is wrong doesn't mean it can't have an article in Wikipedia. But the article as it stands puts far too much emphasis on Mitra et al's viewpoint, misleading lay readers into overestimating its merit. (It was from a discussion with one such reader that I came across this article.) At the very least, the article needs a complete rewrite, something that is unlikely to happen due to the obscurity of the idea and the lack of good secondary sources. Jim E. Black (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:FRINGE - there are plenty of refs. Besides the refs listed on the page, the most creditable website ref I could find was this, but gbooks has even more:, , , (whole chapter in a book for this link), and a ~15 more over here at gScholar. Not to mention the article is well written and informative. However, I would like to see a criticism section included. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 02:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep cleanup is not a reason for deletion. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could always restore the original stub 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the huge article raises red flags indeed, but this is no reason for deletion. Tag it for cleanup, restore an earlier version or, if unsalvageable, merge it into Abhas Mitra. You can take either of these approaches without submitting a formal AfD, it's a wiki. Fwiiw, the edits ostensibly by Mitra are harmless. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the article says Mitra disavows the MECO concept, and keeps to the ECO concept instead... 70.55.86.100 (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This whole thing is crackpot nonsense. If the article is kept it needs to be very clear to the casual reader that the idea is nonsense; if we create the impression that there's a controversy, or that the idea is considered viable, then we've failed. I'm worried that we won't be able to find any sensible debunkings by experts to use as references. The mistake is too elementary to be worth it; it's like trying to find a paper debunking some random circle-squaring construction. Here's a Usenet post at least (John Baez quoting Chris Hillman). Do we have to keep everything that some idiot on the newscientist.com staff thinks is worth reporting on? I'd rather delete the article. -- BenRG (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Crackpot nonsense' is not a reason for deletion. Why do we keep the article Cydonia Mensae? There's a reason we have an article for religion and flat earthers, too - and I'll give you a hint. It's not because they're factually correct. We just need to clean up the article and have an understandable criticism section. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now now, Cydonia Mensae is a perfectly respectable topic for an article... it's a totally valid piece of Martian geography that has had the misfortune to be hijacked by fringe theories, the unfortunate fact that the article is mainly devoted to said fringe theories notwithstanding. Icalanise (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not an encyclopedic article. This is a political manifesto, especially Discussion section. This a pseudo-science, not even a fringe-science, because it is based on simple mathematical errors, which its authors refuse to recognize. This article is in many respects an original research, because it makes conclusions from the facts (often wrong conclusions). Therefore the article should be deleted. Maximum what this theory deserves is a short stub. Ruslik (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep: Non-specialist readers need an explanation of why such theories are outside the mainstream. -- Philcha (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Non-notable far fringe theory. It's the pet of 3 or 4 guys, the very definition of an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority per WP:WEIGHT. The article looks like it's referenced but it isn't; practically all of the references are to the theory's tiny circle of proponents. Despite lack of notability a heavily revised article could be useful as a debunking (see also WP:SNARK). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands it gives far too much legitimacy to what is considered a fringe theory, and is written in a style which is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. However the concept has been covered in secondary sources (e.g. ), thus deletion seems like going too far. It would be preferable to have a complete rewrite. In the meantime we should replace the article with a stub giving a brief overview. If we want to preserve the material that is currently on the page, perhaps move it to some kind of subpage? Icalanise (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - looking through the history, I couldn't find a salvageable version. Recreate a stub if it's worthy of an article, but delete this mess first.--Boffob (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see why this should be deleted.  The nomination states no policy to require or suggest deletion.  The reasons stated focus on the incorrectness of myopic scope of the article, however; in the absence of any policy stating so, I cannot endorse deleting an entire page simply because the article is either wrong or referenced too narrowly.  If indeed the references are all that are available and the topic is not notable, perhaps it should be deleted, but in such a case it should be renominated on that basis so that people can review under that criteria.  As it stands, this appears to be an attempt to delete a disfavored theory without any justification therefore- despite the admitted acknowledgment that such isn't sufficient grounds to delete.  I say Keep and renominate for deletion for lack of notability if such is the case- which I've not reviewed since that was beyond the scope of the nomination.  --Δζ (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. So the reasons that were given by nominator are not important. Ruslik (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

article. In particular, if there is anything like ``personal reflection'' in a scientific article, the same may be removed. May be I will look into such angles. Otherwise, it looks to be balanced scientific article well supported by many published papers in standard peer reviewed journals. However, it is true that in this new concept may take its due time to become well trenched. But this happens with many new concepts. The present plea for deletion seems more to have do with intolerance with new ideas rather than genuine scientific reasons. As far aware, as far as published scientific literature is concerned, there is no critique of the MECO idea. Even if there would be critique of a certain idea or a paradigm, there is no reason that, wiki articles on that idea/paradigm should be deleted. For example, many particle physicists thing that String Theory is a complete failure which is ``Not even Wrong''. But such disagreements would not justify deletion of any article on String Theory. -Dingle2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingle2008 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no genuine basis for the deletion of this article. There might indeed be scope for improvement for this
 * Many physicists do think that String Theory may not be a true theory of nature. However nobody questions its mathematical foundation. MECO theory is based on mathematical errors&mdash;it basically claims that 2+2=5. Ruslik (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mathematical errors, or any factual errors in general != non notable. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 01:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to have been listed as crackpot nonsense but this isn't a useful policy based reason for deletion. The degree and level of reporting is the relevant factor here and this is only tangentially mentioned in this discussion. Its too complicated for me to make any sense of this so I'm relisting in the hope that further discussion will make a consensus clear on this. I'm sure the closing admin will very much appreciate comments on the sourcing since that is the policy we need to measure the discussion against. Spartaz Humbug! 19:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dingle2008's comment illustrates what I'm afraid will happen if this article is kept. The article looks reasonable enough, and most people can't possibly evaluate the claims on their merits, so they will come away from it thinking it might actually be reasonable. What we need is either an article that makes it clear that it's not reasonable, or no article at all. Writing that article is very difficult because of Wikipedia policies. Mitra makes certain claims (believes certain things) about the theory of general relativity which are false (in a purely mathematical sense, all empirical issues aside). For example, he thinks that a black hole can never form because of singular behavior (e.g. z → ∞) at the event horizon. There's a section in MTW which specifically discusses this idea and says/shows that it's wrong. However, if you take WP:SYNTH at face value, we're not permitted to cite that source because it doesn't specifically say that Mitra is wrong, it only says some claims are wrong that happen to coincide with Mitra's. I don't know if there are any published papers that specifically outline how Mitra is wrong. Yet an article on this subject must clearly state that Mitra is wrong, because he is, mathematically, wrong; anything else would make a joke of Wikipedia's core goals.

in strong gravitational field, (ii) The existence of a critical luminosity called Eddington Luminosity, and (iii) attainment of strong magnetic fields due to magnetic flux freezing. I do not see how these aspects could be ``crackpot and cranky''. Far from it such adjectives seem to be in a bad taste and emanating from intolerance. Neither do I see where is 2+2=5? And if it were so, how so many related papers got published in standard peer reviewed journals. I hope the original authors would improve the article, if need be. Overall, the comments smacks of personal attack and intolerance. This cannot be justified. (Dingle2008 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Keep As I go through this article, I find that it is based on physical principles like (i) Bending of radiation


 * But maybe I'm overthinking this and a sensible article can be written; I'd much prefer that to no article at all. The best way to show that a sensible article can be written is to write it. I would be happier if at least one person who wants to keep the article would (a) rewrite it and (b) commit to policing it for a while. If that doesn't happen before the end of this discussion period then I'd prefer to delete what we have now rather than continue to serve it to our readers. Anyone interested in taking up this challenge in the future can always recreate the article. -- BenRG (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but only after radical rewrite. Effectively, it is now a promo piece on a crackpot theory (according to people whom I respect such as John Baez). The Jew of Linz, the article that first brought me to Wikipedia presented a similar problem. However, thanks to the combined effort of several WP editors, we managed to turn it around diff. It was a lot of work, though. Essentially we cut down (with a hacksaw!) on the self-promotion by the book's author and expanded the "Response" section to accurately reflect the 10-to-1 balance of unfavorable reviews of the book. I think something similar could be done here, too.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm sorry, but after seeing the phrase "MECO's are not a widely-accepted concept" too many alarm bells went off. This smacks of original research unsupported by reliable sources.  TN ‑  X   - Man  21:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - third party sources: the article has two external links, one to SpaceDaily (science news website) and to New Scientist (UK science magazine). And has some googlenews hits   and was in The Age and Harper's Magazine. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * gbooks has plenty too. See my links above. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is the lack of accurate sources that we can use to debunk this nonsense idea. Can you find a source among those you listed (or indeed any source at all) that describes this work as embarrassing nonsense? Because that's what it is. -- BenRG (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- this fringe theory is mentioned in enough credible sources to justify an article. It needs to be rewritten so that it is not just a promotion of said theory, but that's not a reason to delete. Reyk  YO!  23:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources to show this is a notable fringe theory. Edward321 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would the people voting "keep" be willing to change their position to "keep but only with a total rewrite", like Goodmorningworld? You think this subject meets notability guidelines and ought to have an article—sure, great. But a decent article on this subject is not going to magically spring into existence. If you think it ought to exist, then write it! What we have now is far worse than no article at all. If no one is going to write a decent article in the next few days, then we should go back to our previous no-article state—not forever, but until someone writes a good article. You don't need to be an administrator to recreate a deleted article; anyone can do it. -- BenRG (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only problem I can see with that is that we'd need an expert (or at least someone smarter than me!) to determine what's factually correct and what's not. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 15:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit very drastically. In fact, that's what the nominator suggested. I think he'd be in a good position to do the editing. It doesn't have to present the theory in detail or try to prove it--thats what the linked references are for. I note that some of this group's papers seems to be in the most respectable journals, Monthly Notices of the RAS, ApJ, & AJ. One can show it is being ignored by looking to see if the papers are cited by anyone else. And if they are cited, you can see what people say about it and quote them. DGG (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tried reading it and it is just too darn confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.222.8 (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The difficulty in rewriting the Article is finding someone to do it. Comments above include "misunderstanding of basic calculus", "too elementary a mistake", and "like 2+2=5". I rather suspect it is not quite so easy. Especially if Mr. Mitra were to jump in and defend himself. These people can be surprisingly resilient, and it can take weeks of pounding away at them by real experts before they finally break down and fall apart in ways visible to everyone. I've added the article to the "Fringe physics" category, based on the negative assessments by Chris Hillman and John Baez, who are recognized authorities in the field. That, combined with the multiple disclaimers slapped on top of the article, should be sufficient that no-one gets misled into taking the theory at face value. It could be months, however, before a Wikipedian with proper scientific qualifications (others need not apply) finally takes the time to rewrite the Article. Even then, it will not be comprehensible to most readers (by "comprehensible" I mean that one understands where Mitra went wrong and can explain the problem to others.) However, unlike the IP above, I do not consider "makes my head hurt" a valid criterion for deletion.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite so that the theory is not given undue weight. Make it clear that it is not widely held, and add in a section of criticism if such a section can be sourced. --Falcorian (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and start from scratch if this theory is notable, which it doesn't seem to be. Verbal   chat  11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be pointless since the existing content would just be put back. All that would be achieved is the removal of the edit history which would be contrary to our licence terms and general principles. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2008 (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.