Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Square Nebula Explanation


 * 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 (closing it early per WP:SNOW). Huon (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Red Square Nebula Explanation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested WP:PROD, so wasting everyone's time doing this the long way round. To repeat my original prod rationale, Obvious content fork of Red Square Nebula, created because the creator didn't like the existing version of that article but wasn't allowed to change it to his preferred wording. Wikipedia isn't Google Knol; when there's a dispute over the wording of an article, we don't host multiple versions of that article and let the reader upvote their favorite. All that aside, this is a fairly obvious of WP:SYN, since none of the references claim that this nebula is created by electrical pinches in Birkeland currents. The purported justification for contesting the proposed deletion was "There is a clear reference, reference 5, where it is explained that"—I'll leave it readers to judge for themselves how reliable Holoscience.com is as a source. &#8209; Iridescent 19:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC) &#8209; Iridescent 19:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent claims that I was not allowed to change an article to my preferred wording; this is not true, I was attempting to add extremely relevant content with references, but my changes were constantly deleted and called names such as "fringe" and "bizarre". There was not explanation as to why valid information was being deleted by what were clearly veteran Wikipedia editors, only the name calling. When I attempted to question them on why they were removing valid information and discuss the information itself, they made it personal saying they would block me, and the information. Iridescent also mistakenly claims above that that there is no reference to "since none of the references claim that this nebula is created by electrical pinches in Birkeland currents".. now he is changing it to dispute reference 5. It is also mentioned in reference 4. Reference 5 was from a lecture given at the University of Maryland; you can view the speech at around 31 minutes in. From what I have provided, there should be no valid reason for not allowing this information to be posted. I feel like I am the victim of Wikipedia heavyweights, that just want to throw their weight around and silence valid content, even if they don't like it. If you are denying plasma and electric pinches and Birkeland currents, you are denying reality, as those have been proven long ago, Birkeland having won a nobel prize. To envision an electric pinch, or z-pinch in a Birkeland current does not take much imagination once you understand what is going on. To try and imagine it when you have been taught, wrongly, that stars are powered by fusion your whole life, is definitely difficult and painful. Either way, yes, let us leave it to readers to judge for themselves how reliable science journals are, when they are still teaching fusion, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Hhowardroark (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what Wikipedia is. We do not care whether what we say is right or not; we exist only to summarize what the current mainstream opinion is on any given topic. (If Wikipedia had existed in Copernicus's day, our cosmology articles would be squarely geocentric.) If you have a view that isn't the one which dominates the mainstream literature, there are any number of appropriate websites for you to promote it, but we're not one of them. &#8209; Iridescent 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC): Thank you very much for clarifying what Wikipedia is. I had no idea. I am sure that the majority of the readers of Wikipedia would like to know that information as well, and it really should be published as a disclaimer on the top or bottom of all of your pages, that you don't care whether what you say is right or not; it is only a consensus of mainstream opinion. I cannot imagine this site getting much funding with that as the tag line for getting donations. Either way, I sincerely appreciate your candidness in this matter. If having a consensus is a requirement, then would it be possible to change the article title to just say Red Square Nebula, Electric Universe Theory Explanation, or something similar; this would meet the requirement for consensus, because it is stating that it is a theory, which it is, and everyone can agree on that. You can either merge it with the other article or continue on its own. I would prefer not to merge with the other article, as the other article does not say anything, it just says they don't know what causes it; the scientific community does have a consensus that they have no idea what-so-ever could be causing the Red Square Nebula... yet somehow says they don't think it is the electric universe theory? Please explain. Have you provided any references that the electric universe theory has been disproved. Apparently the University of Maryland is extremely interested, as are others all over the Earth. Scientific consensus would actually require constant polling of scientists; do you have any references that you polled the entire scientific community and that they have listened to the electric universe theories and have stated they are wrong and not believable? I only see about two references in the Red Square Nebula article that just say it was discovered, and they don't know what caused it... maybe we should tell them. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, even in terms of just getting a general consensus of the scientific community on this topic, and how to go about that, or if you already did go about it, could you tell me when it was done, and what the results were. Was it this month, or last year, or a decade ago? Were the results close, with say 49% believing it, 51% not believing? And who was polled, was it one scientist's paper in a journal or article? I know you are saying it is quantity of believers in something, not quality, so please show me the quantity. Awaiting your thoughts. Thanks.Hhowardroark (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious WP:POVFORK. This is an encyclopedia that follows accepted science rather than leading it, so, even if this theory is true and a great scientific breakthrough, we don't say so until it has been accepted by the scientific community. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be the link which appears at the bottom of all pages on Wikipedia explaining exactly what Wikipedia does and how it operates, which leads in turn to Neutral point of view which explains our policies on undue weight and fringe theories? (I particularly advise reading this section.) Or possibly the first, very large link on our main page, which gives a more general view of Wikipedia's purpose and mechanisms? Or possibly Five pillars, heavily linked throughout the site, which explains Wikipedia's non-negotiable core policies and is the head of a tree from which you can access all our other key policies? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and we make no secret of what our purpose is and how we aim to achieve it. &#8209; Iridescent 21:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding to the first part of what I wrote. I am more interested in the second part about how you determine consensus, and whether I can post the entry as a theory. If you have say you need a scientific consensus, can you show me how consensus is determined, or is it just your opinion on the scientific consensus?Hhowardroark (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC) A further note on reading the 5 pillars; I see nothing about scientific consensus; however I do see pillar #2: "In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as 'the truth' or 'the best view'." And then pillar #5, there are no firm rules. #2 does say it needs reliable sources, and I did provide plenty of those, that show there are people from Universities that believe this theory... so I don't understand what the problem is; you also seem to be breaking pillar #4, being open and welcome to newcomers. Not only that, you keep using the pronoun we; when you say "we", do you mean editors of Wikipedia? Because if so, I am part of that we now to. Shouldn't you be saying I, or do you speak for me now too?Hhowardroark (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * When we (yes, we refers to all Wikipedia editors, or at least those who follow Wikipedia's policies) speak of consensus on Wikipedia, it doesn't have anything to do with scientific consensus; it is solely consensus among Wikipedia editors about many things. See WP:CON for more info. Additionally, while WP:NPOV is a core Wikipedia policy, it's augmented by guidelines like WP:FRINGE, which says that especially minor viewpoints should not be presented in a equal light with widely accepted ones (see WP:FALSEBALANCE, part of NPOV). As far as I can tell, your sources don't show that this is anything but a fringe theory. In fact, the sources you have that even mention this theory are by or in reference to figures like Wal Thornhill (a physicist who eschews math, ) and Tom Wilson (who has a PhD in plant physiology). Additionally, the sources appear to be either published by the figures themselves (see WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:RSSELF) or heavily associated with the Electric Universe movement ( and ; the essay WP:INDEPENDENT has some points on why affiliated sources are problematic). None of these appear to be reliable sources to me. clpo13(talk) 22:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete If I click on the scholar link and get nothing, then look at the sources and see no RS that actual discus the theroy I have to wonder.Slatersteven (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete shouldn't even require a discussion Lipsquid (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious POV fork with poor sourcing. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * delete "all stars being powered by electric currents in space". oy.  obvious FRINGE POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with other posters, this is not serving a useful purpose. Ultra fringe theory, terrible sources, this article has almost nothing going for it. --Krelnik (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:POVFORK, too poorly sourced to be integrated into the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete' Yeah, this is pretty clearly bizarre fake science crap. It's pretty fringe, even compared to most fringe theories. Also, it's a WP:POVFORK. ThePlatypusofDoom    (talk)  Happy Holidays 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete' Obvious nonsense is nonsense. Roxy the dog. bark 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pile on Delete per PROFRINGE and NPOV. As just about everyone has noted it's a POV content fork intended to promote a fringe pseudo-scientific theory. On a side note, I would encourage  to read the guidelines that other editors have linked in their comments before doing anymore editing on controversial topics like this. This is intended as the friendliest advice as I have no doubt that they are well intentioned. But well intentioned editors who are unable to abide by the community's guidelines and policies get blocked with depressing regularity. Please take a deep breath and step back for a bit while you get your bearings here. We need good editors, but we also need them to understand how we work. Thanks...  -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete based on problems of establishing independent notability of the theory. I think it might be possible to maybe establish notability of Wal Thornhill, and it would certainly be possible to include information on his beliefs in an article on him, but not so far as I can see for a standalone article. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fringe theory, which even if valid should be at Red Square Nebula. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POVFORK. The article is clearly unbalanced towards the given fringe/pseudoscientific theory. Joshualouie711 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2016 (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.