Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements


 * 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 per WP:CSD. Non-admin closure of discussion. Article was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth prior to closure. Please take to deletion review if there are any problems.Martin 4 5 1  23:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No apparent reliable secondary sources, though some typo-laden testimonials from demented elderly chemists. EEng (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This article, relates to a widespread phenomenon. Whether pseudoscience or real science it deserves to be recognized as a subject of interest for many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.231.196 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: a fuller description of the concept can be found here, from which it is clear that this is unadulterated insanity. Though this may be notable insanity... הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 00:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Warning: Contains the yucky image, "that which issues from the mouth of the creator ... the semen of the father in heaven". Also explains that "Extraterrestrials from the planet Nibiru came to Earth" -- perhaps we should transwiki this to Nibuirupedia? EEng (talk)
 * My apologies. I only read the first paragraph, and did not notice the images. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 00:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete: and tagged as such, category G4. See:
 * Articles for deletion/Monatomic elements
 * Articles for deletion/ORMEs
 * הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see that earlier. What a colossal waste of time this has been. Thanks. When this is over let's be sure to salt "Orbitally Rearranged Moronic Elements" EEng (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Modern electronics or physics would look entirely insane to someone from the recent past, don't you agree? Just because you have the opinion that it looks insane, doesn't make it wrong. Your opinion is simply that, and you are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't give you the right to remove information from the public view.
 * For a more level-headed source of information:
 * This is an emerging field of research and still widely misunderstood, misrepresented and highly speculative. Needless to say its still pretty "rough" at this stage, yet it truly is a widespread interest for many and therefore deserves recognition. Gravity is still a theory, so is evolution, and if Gravity and Evolution have Wiki pages then so should Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.231.196 (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per the above - "This is an emerging field of research and still widely misunderstood, misrepresented and highly speculative", which means it is unlikely to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Stalwart 111  00:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Be sure to use Orbitally Rearranged Dead Sea salt, of course! EEng (talk)
 * So your answer is to stamp-out and eliminate emerging fields of research? Think about what you are suggesting.
 * For a more level-headed source of information:
 * Our answer is: read WP:GNG and do not comment again until you have done so, because you are wasting everyone's time. You're making a fool of yourself. EEng (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And you're looking at this the wrong way around. It's not a matter of "stamping something out" - if it is not a notable subject then an article should never have been created in the first place. You added something to Wikipedia that should never have been added. We are simply reverting to a version of the encyclopaedia that didn't include this non-notable subject. Stalwart 111  01:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fellow editors! Let us be not hasty! According to, this stuff lets you:
 * "have perfect telepathy," -- imagine the time saved on talk pages!
 * "Be able to levitate and/or bilocate," -- puts all editors on an even playing field with even the most aggressive sockpuppeteer!
 * "Know good and evil when it’s in the room with you" -- ends AfD debates instantly!
 * "Project one’s thoughts into someone else’s mind," -- instant consensus!
 * "Heal by laying on of hands," -- effortless copyediting!
 * "Cleanse or resurrect the dead within two or three days after they have died" -- retrieve deleted pages without administrator intervention!
 * So maybe we should give this stuff a chance. EEng (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete To call this WP:FRINGE would be an insult to fringes --- and a heresy against tzitzit) --- everywhere. David in DC (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not delete - Please review this scientific publication: The precious metals we prefer to ignore, Minerals Engineering, 25 July 2013, Jannie S.J. van Deventer, Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892687513002185 Look ya'll I'm not saying I buy into all the crazy claims that people make about it, just stick it in the Fringe science heading, or pseudoscience BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS! You might not find mention of it in peer reviewed scientific articles, but you won't find mention of astrology or bilocation there either, and yet there are wikipedia articles on them!  I'm not fighting to say you can take ormus and resurrect the dead, but I am fighting to say that it has a large enough following to warrant a wikipedia article.  Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean there aren't many who have.  If I can find one legit article above, there are likely more.  And this is a legit scientific article on something that is pseudoscience at best in its current standing.  I think Ormus is more notable than Mecyclothorax unctus (with only 357 google hits and one notable reference), and Iraq at the 2010 Asian Para Games.  "Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements" has 5,000 google hits, and "Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements" has over 6,000, and there are dozens of products for the health industry, agriculture, etc...  This means there are companies out there selling it for profit, and consumers who are buying it; this alone warrants notability if there is a market for the stuff right?  Not to mention tens of thousands of quacks that claim it can make their third eye see Apollo's underwear.  And scientists that are spending their time debunking it in youtube videos and online articles.  The page has been created before, and deleted, but someone created it because IT IS NOTABLE!  The fact that topics can even be "salted" is INSANE, it should be the other way around, if a topic is brought up enough times by completely different independent people, doesn't that mean there are people out there seeking information on the subject?  Bottom line, it warrants notability.  Just slap "pseudoscience" on it and call it a day. --Jugglerseth (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability - During some Amazon book searches, there appear to be 44 books that talk about the topic of "Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements" (or ""Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements"). Not sure exactly how many instances are required for notability, but seemingly dozens of publishing companies thought there would be a market for the topic.  I have read the guidelines for notability and reliable sources, and it doesn't clearly state how many times something must be mentioned for it to be considered pseudo or fringe.  We are not building a science stub here, this is a pseudoscience stub.  So please explain to me exactly what is the criteria for a pseudoscience stub and what guidelines I should read that will explain why this article is not notable. --Jugglerseth (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, my apologies, I have since read the FRINGE section and it does clearly state that only one reliable publication is required. I believe that the publication Minerals Engineering is sufficient?--Jugglerseth (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say "only one" it says:


 * and...


 * We can argue about whether Minerals Engineering is a "major publication" but it seems likely that the author might fall into the category of "promulgators and popularizers" of the theory anyway, which basically rules it out. That and WP:FRINGE doesn't trump WP:GNG which still requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Stalwart 111  08:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete While a lot of modern science would look weird to those of the past, it's taken a lot of time and work for it to become accepted. When this load of fruitloopery (pace New Scientist's Feedback editor) becomes accepted science, then is the time. Until then, we can forego it. Peridon (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For copyright reasons it's inappropriate to label such things "fruitloopery". The preferred term is "nuthatchery". EEng (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean New Scientist copyright? I acknowledged that as a source of the expression. Been going there for years and no complaints have been recorded there that I know of. (I'm a regular reader and have contributed an item for the page.) The cereal (or whatever it is) is spelled 'Froot', and that wouldn't be copyright but trade mark. Peridon (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you knew I was kidding. EEng (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Won't... 8-) Peridon (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: Oh God, it was horrible! I scrubbed and I scrubbed but dammit they don't make water hot enough!-- Laun  chba  ller  19:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How disappointing - How disappointing that Wikipedia is so fascist. I know some of the stuff people say about Ormus is "nuthatchery" and so forth, but to take such a role of censorship that it doesn't warrant a fringe science article is stupefying.  I never thought it would be so challenging and met with such opposition simply to acknowledge the existence of the topic.  I am saddened by the fact that the admins who are pulling the strings of this open-sourced project have become so self-important that a subject that is very arguably noteworthy has now been deleted.  How shameful.  I have lost some faith in Wikipedia as a result.  It is astounding that this subject with so much of a following, with over 40 books talking about, with a legitimate scientific article discussing it, with discussions ranging 40 years, despite the questionable scientific validity of the subject, that it is not considered noteworthy and doesn't merit a silly article.  This subject clearly meets ALL requirements for fringe theories according to Wikipedia's guidelines as there is "at least one reliable source".  Oh well, it is only a matter of time before there is an article on the subject as it has been around over 40 years at this point.  History will look upon this page and see how rude and arrogant some of you have presented yourselves.  If the topic gets "salted" then there is little hope Wikipedia, as it would obviously then be run by people more concerned with their own egocentric views being "right" rather than cataloging noteworthy subjects of human interest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.50.195 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of us did poke fun at the subject matter itself -- it's patently absurd -- and I got really pissed off at some of you guys, but that didn't mean we weren't applying the appropriate keep-delete criteria. This has nothing to do with ORME being pseudoscience; WP has plenty of articles on pseudoscientific topics. There can't be an article (at this time) because there are no (or just one, apparently brief) reliable, independent, secondary sources (at this time). All those websites you kept adding to the article cannot establishing notability, because they're not independent of the subject.
 * You are wrong when you state that there aren't serious scientific papers on astrology; there certainly are (as there are on telepathy, remote viewing, etc etc -- the CIA funded a lot of this research in the 1960s and 70s, once it was discovered that the Soviets were investigating such things -- the US couldn't risk falling behind in the parapsychology race.)
 * Salting doesn't make it impossible to have an article in the future; it just means that an admin will need to be convinced there's new evidence of notability before an article can be created, to avoid a repeat of all this for the 4th time.
 * What you say is true: "it is only a matter of time", in the sense that likely sooner or later appropriate sources will appear. Then, and only then, can there be an article. I said before, and I meant it, that I'd like to see that happen. Make that a mission -- really search the journals, maybe government medical fraud investigations, etc. I'm serious. I look forward to your coming up with the sources needed. When you think you've found them, contact me at User talk:EEng and we can talk about convincing an admin to "unsalt". Good luck.
 * EEng (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article has been speedily deleted as G4 as it should have been. If and when there are reliable in-depth sources describing this particular fringe theory, take EEng's suggestion or take it up at Deletion review. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 22:42, 10 October 2013 (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.