Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novelty 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:04Z 

Novelty theory

 * — (View AfD)

Impenetrable pseudoscience. No sources to show its notability. Leibniz 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Delete This is absolutely meaning-free jargon, and should have attracted an immediate db-nonsense tag. Garbage.--Anthony.bradbury 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Terence McKenna, the author of this theory, was very well-known as a professional wierdo - we have Time Cube, after all, which is far more eccentric. Nonsense it may be, but it's notable nonsense. Tevildo 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Only crackpots can believe it, but there are enough crackpots in the world to make it notable (books, web pages atc.) Wikipedia is not about truth, but about notability, Leibniz and Anthony.bradbury.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So why exactly is this notable? Crackpot blogs don't count. Leibniz 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Books do. See the Amazon.com link below.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, at least in current state. This kind of content must be properly referenced.  Time Cube, whose place here I grudgingly accede to, was at least (mockingly) discussed by MIT and Georgia Tech.  But here, there are no references outside of self-published sources and extreme fringe web publications.  Bizarre pseudoscience ideas that are publically mocked or derided can be notable.  Bizarre pseudoscience ideas that are simply and completely ignored are not.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep (very strong keep) Timewave Zero definitely qualifies as pseudoscience or bullcrap, and Terence Mckenna qualifies as a bit out-there, but seeing as how popular and widely read he is makes this deletion suggestion completely baseless. References would be easy to come by, they are just ommited out of laziness (as in most wikipedia articles). I see his books all the time in Borders Books which meanse this passes the Pokemon Test with flying colors. This "theory" is one of his most popular, especially among the type of people who are into 2012 crap (which is a significant number of people).  The article does not endorse the theory and efforts have been made to treat it in an NPOV manner. A good argument could perhaps be made to MERGE the article, but a deletion is completely basless (keep in mind, this is coming from someone who thinks Terence Mckenna is full of crap...see the discussion page for the article to see my efforts to make sure it hasn't been treated to lauditorily.) Gene Ray I don't think even has a published book. Lots of people, read Terence Mckenna and take him seriously--albeit few scientists. Before you nominate a article for deletion do a little research to make sure it really is not notable. Terence Mckenna is inarguably influential in certain circles. Full of crap, but definitely influential to many people. Brentt 05:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The popularity of McKenna's writings is documented. His books are sold in Borders, and lots of other places.  Plenty of independent sources make mention of him (often to say he's wrong, but that's fine, too).  That's all why he has an article, and why it is not up at AFD (as an aside: it needs some work, though!).  None of that means that any given idea of his meets the standards for its own article unless independent, reliable sources have addressed the idea.  Without anything verifiable, there's nothing we can even merge, although a redirect should remain due to the value as a search term on the topic. Serpent&#39;s Choice 05:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - this is utter bollocks - but it's popular utter bollocks.SkierRMH 05:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Certainly not science, but interesting and notable as a product of its time and as the work of a fascinating individual whose books are still in print. Wikipedia is not an encylopedia of science, it is a general purpose-encyclopedia, and should default to inclusion rather than exclusion.  The article itself seems balanced, and does not present the "theory" as fact.  To disagree or disapprove is fine; that's what discussion pages are for.  To remove it is completely unnecessary.  If for no other reason, the article should be retained for historical and literary reasons. -- DaveSeidel 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um. Keep I guess, as long as we can guarantee that it reminas crystal clear that the theory is twaddle. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. I can't comment on its scientific validity, but it has been culturally significant. Let the reader decide and the scholar use the page for research, even if the scholar is opposed to McKenna. Alpheus 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's enough noteriety/interest to make it a reasonable point for look-up.  Voideater 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure this "theory" is unscientific by its very nature, which is an attempt to quantify the ratio between that which conforms to the scientific universe versus that which is outside of (or in paradoxical relationship to) science.  I think some confusion arises because of the scientific-sounding presentation of the theory itself.  If Wikipedia was a purely scientific or mathematical journal, then any accompanying social phenomenon would be irrelevant and the unverifiable and unscientific basis of novelty theory would warrant deletion.  In my opinion though, what's important about the theory is that it exists, it has a following, and it's a significant part of a much larger social phenomenon around the belief in a major approaching event in 2012.  You don't have to subscribe to these ideas to acknowledge that there is a social movement that does.  As such, I find it very interesting, and I'm glad you didn't delete this article before I found it.  Also, I just looked and there are articles about both warp drive and the christian rapture, both of which are spoken of by their respective followers as if they were scientifically and literally true, and neither of which would withstand scientific peer review. Walksintwoworlds 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My problem is not that it isn't science (unquestionably true, but a great many things aren't science). My problem is that there is no verification of the topic from reliable sources, and I was unable to locate any in a reasonable effort.  As it stands, the article does not show that anyone independant has written about the topic.  Perhaps we should merge to its creator's article instead? Serpent&#39;s Choice 13:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You know what Mr. Choice, you do have a good point. I found the article because I was searching on the general topic.  I had not heard of either the theory or the author when I started, and I would have been just as happy to have found the two in a single place under the author's name.Walksintwoworlds 19:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact is that Novelty Theory is an idea by a popular philosopher. As such it deserves at least some mention on Wikipedia. If nonsense weren't allowed on Wikipedia, what would happen to all the articles about religion? I have to agree with DaveSeidel; it should at least be included for historical purposes. Judging an article (and by extension, a particular idea) to be irrelevant just because you don't agree with it is nonsense. --Kooky (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Wilson mentions novelty theory in his book, "Prometheus Rising".WombatOnslaught
 * Keep Novelty Theory is not specific to Terrence McKenna, Timewave Zero is. Robert Anton Wilson, author of 26 books, has what he calls The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon which is also a theory of novelty, and he never mentions Terrence Mckenna throughout his entire hour and a half long explanation of his theory even though they are very similar in aspect. I think that not only is novelty theory psudoscience but fringe psudoscience and so the availability of information on it is scarce. That being so, actually making an all inclusive page on it would be difficult but should be attempted. I have a recording of the Seminar that Robert Anton Wilson gave on his novelty theory, and will use that as a basis to form a section on that. If at least 2, possibly 3 separate but similar novelty theories can be accounted for and referenced The title of the article and basic overview should be changed, and separate sections for each persons theory should be formed.


 * 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.