Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noron theory


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Noron theory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

All my searches for reliable sources on this subject, have failed to find any reference to "Noron theory" (or anything related) outside of wikipedia and its numerous mirrors. This strongly implies that no WP:RSs on the subject exist. In particular, this "theory" fails to be WP:N (if it exists at all).TR 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC) TR 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete-0 Ghits. "Retarded time" has a lot of coverage and its own Wikipedia article. However, a link to this article was deleted by User:Larsobrien on the grounds this is pseudoscience. Also, article ackowledges non-notability and gives off vibes of WP:OR, as it states that "The Noron theory has not penetrated mainstream astrophysics and is not well known, as Hills is continuing research on the Noron theory and has not yet published it." Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - a neologism and non-notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aside from being totally ignored, it isn't even particularly original. It's a very minor science fiction plot device even if it did spawn the hit song "Na Noron Ron" Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not quite a hoax but totally fringey Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete - Unsourced. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Searched for source, found it here. Wallacetrundle (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is well established that blurbs and ads are not reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Did you click on his link? It's not an ad - it's a book. ISBN 1156622859 122.104.146.215 (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an ad for a book by a bookseller. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Are you suggesting I am going to have to buy the book to determine whether this article is verifiable? 122.104.146.215 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or find the book in a library. Simply knowing that there is a book that says it discusses "Noron theory" is not enough to establish notability. For all we know the book may simply reprint what is in the current wikipedia article. In fact, looking at the excerpt given, it seems likely that that book is just an integral reprint of the the category:time travel.TR 08:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Books LLC does seem to reprint Wikipedia content. Per WP:BURDEN you need to supply the relevant quote from the book and indicate how it relates to the article. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have retrieved the book from my university library. I cannot retype the discussion of the Noron Theory here - it will take too long. The discussion would appear to be quite different from what is on Wikipedia however. Anyone have some ideas? --haxmax (talk) 11:29, 01 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk)
 * Burden is still on you to produce a reliable source. Also, don't forget to log on and properly sign your comments. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Why more discussion? Consensus is clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Because according to Noron Theory, we live in retarded times. Yakushima (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Article originator is WP:SPA, and the sole book source IDed above is reported by Google Books to be sourced entirely from Wikipedia . WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and not even notable fringe. Yakushima (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Someone recently notified me of this article, and I had to create an account just to comment here. Although I was aware that my theory had been circulating the halls of Cambridge for some time, I had no idea it had penetrated Wikipedia (I am still unsure whether to be flattered or insulted). I had mentioned the theory briefly in lectures at Cambridge prior to transferring to ALMA, and obviously one of my keen students has produced an article from the scant information from me. The present article slightly misrepresents the true Noron theory (which is much more involved than what is presented in this article); nevertheless, the theory exists and is globally notable (or at least in the astrophysics circles I travel in). The Noron theory has been published in peer reviewed journals (ESO Messenger), but not under the name 'Noron theory', which is the code name I gave it after the passing of my cat, Noron (I have never heard of Jayesh). Should the article be kept, I would be happy to transfer some of my research into the article over the next few weeks/months but I cannot make promises regarding dates as I have enough deadlines I need to worry about. RichardHills (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC) — RichardHills (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well, that basically confirms that this article does not meet the notability requirements of WP:N.TR 12:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also ESO messenger is not a peer reviewed journal, see .TR 12:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete since the theory's own originator tells us it's generally unknown outside "the halls of Cambridge." EEng (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment RichardHills: "the theory exists and is globally notable (or at least in the astrophysics circles I travel in)." Those must be some very tight circles.  Googling on "Richard Hills" and "retarded time" in google scholar, books, and groups produces no discussion whatsoever.  Is it not just that the theory is under a different name, but also all the terms used in the theory?  Can you give us a theory name under which it is notable, by Wikipedia's (possibly insulting, at least to RichardHill) standards? Yakushima (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have read the book which is listed above, and it would appear to confirm the scientific rigour of the Noron Theory. I have scanned the relevant chapter of the book, but it cannot be uploaded here as evidence. Also, I notice the comments for R. Hills, who states that his theory is been largely accepted by his peers. Christopher tomline (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC) — Christopher tomline (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply There is no need to upload the scan of the book for any kind of verification. As far as we can tell, the book section that addresses this supposed Noron Theory derives from the AfD Wikipedia article in question. The book is from a print-on-demand "publisher" -- it costs them next to nothing to list a non-existent book on Amazon, in hopes that somebody will (perhaps only by accident) do a one-click impulse buy.  It also costs them next to nothing to print the Wikipedia articles out with some boilerplate and send it in the mail. Yakushima (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable fringe work. Eeekster (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. All keep !votes thus far originate from single purpose accounts.TR 10:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to jump on Hills. He said right out that he created an account to come here to discuss, so he wasn't trying to sneak in as an SPA.  The other accounts surely are SPAs but there's no reason to think they are Hill -- maybe some students -- I get the clear feeling Hill knows nothing about WP:N and came here because someone directed him to the discussion.  This is a clear delete so let's drop it. EEng (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I said "keep" and this is not an SPA.Haxmax (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Sock puppet. .... I have been a registered user for three years. How does this make me a "newly registered user"?'' Haxmax (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is indeed a clear delete, as you;ll see in the next few days. And you are a veritable archetype of an SPA, plus there's something fishy going on with you as well.    EEng (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep [multiple recommendations from same editor] This is more than just a dictionary definition, and upon reading the book it is evident that there is a lot more you can include in this article. Haxmax (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Haxmax (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete This article should be deleted promptly. It contains a link to my web page at the Cavendish and claims that I originated this theory, which I did not.  The article has just been pointed out to me and I consider that it has no scientific merit whatsoever.  The entries above purporting to come from me are not from me.  If there is a way of banning from Wikipedia the impostor who posted those entries, then I suggest that you consider doing that.  It is obviously unacceptable to pretend to be somebody else in order to try to gain credibility for their unsupported theories.  Richard Hills, Prof of Radio Astronomy, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.0.129 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Any passing admin, please attend to this odd situation... See post immediately above -- if closure is possible now, let's do it. EEng (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that any of the claimants is genuine. Suggest put it on AN/I and delete swiftly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC).
 * I am not sure if this is the real richard hills or some imposter. there are now two people claiming to be richard hills poting comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.248.131 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm no scientist but a friend of Haxmax who is I know he holds a Phd in science is. We saw this "Noron Theory" some time ago and found it interesting.  I have since heard it disscussed on the ABC radio with Richard Fidler some time ago. I believe it has merit in concept.  Ian Harbottle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.169.157 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — 121.208.169.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Keep  There would now appear to be overwheling evidence for keeping this article. I suggest that we can stop editing this discussion, and revert to improving the main article.Haxmax (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick tally of votes: four votes for 'delete' and six for 'keep'. Lets move on from this trivial discussion, and as suggested, we should continue to contribute to the underlying science of this theory. Christopher tomline (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Christopher tomline (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Heartily agreed Chris - science should not be hindered by trivial naysayers. Rocket Scientist01 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Rocket Scientist01 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Others have claimed that this is a non-notable fringe work. This is clearly incorrect. If a book released by a reputable publishing-house includes a comprehensive discussion of the Noron Theory, then this is irrefutable evidence to the contrary.Cameron mcleod (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Cameron mcleod (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete No reliable sources + lots of pile-on !voting by new accounts suggests a hoax, or at least a very unnotable theory. First Light (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to all participants, especially the newcomers who may not be aware of how this works: This is not a poll, it is a discussion. Arguments with a solid basis in Wikipedia policies are given greater weight. Most relevant here would seem to be the policies on fringe science and notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - with hopes that the particularly obvious sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets involved will be thoroughly investigated. Non-notable, nonsensical fringe theory without any basis or notice anywhere. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - clearly some users have a hidden agenda, and are trying to delete this notable theory for no apparent reason. Ferris Claire (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Ferris Claire (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak Delete - Simply because these immature sockpuppets/meatpuppets are trying so hard to have it kept and the vast majority of respectable Wikipedians support deletion; if it's notable enough to be kept these sockpuppets wouldn't have to resort to voting fraud to try and save it. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 04:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I support deleting this, although interstingly Professor Richard Hills appear to support keeping this article. Sock purpet (talk) 04:58, 5 February 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.