Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen J. Crothers


 * 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. L Faraone  18:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Stephen J. Crothers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PROF and I cannot find any claim of notability that does not violate WP:FRINGE. He is just someone who doesn't believe in relativity, and that is not enough to justify a biography on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relativity is not dogma to be believed, it is an incomplete theory to be investigated. No one has ever claimed it to be a ToE or GUT and theories exist to be challenged.
 * Crothers is a public figure who has made many public speeches and appearances and served as a reviewer for journals such as Progress in Physics. He is often cited in Cosmology debates as many of the world's foremost experts have personally responded to his criticisms revealing an intriguing discussion regarding the topic. I see no reason that a page about him should be deleted when it serves to inform those who may find themselves interested in the debate regarding Black Holes in which the world's most celebrated advocates of Black Hole theory have personally engaged.
 * Of course General Relativity will collapse against the reality of the real world - because it is an incomplete model - not a GUT or ToE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.16.140.31 (talk • contribs) — 199.16.140.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 *  Not sure yet  Mind made up Delete. Pure fringery with no reliable sources. A GS h-index of 10 (mostly in non-mainstream fringe publications) marginal for maths, low for physics. Fringers can be notable but this one isn't. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete appears to be massively WP:FRINGE, and fails WP:PROF. "independent researcher" = no university will give him a job.  His achievements appear so far to be involved with "fringe" conferences, publishing "fringe" papers, etc. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)  - please don't remove my vote Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that: a hiccup. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC).


 * The Stephen Crothers entry involves a significant challenge to prevailing cosmological views regarding scientific issues about black holes. Crothers has peer reviewed papers that have not been scientifically refuted. It seems to me that removing this entry in the absence of an objective refutation (which I don't think will be forthcoming) would amount to a new and dangerous form of censorship, given the context of the Wikipedia system.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.69.4 (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC) — 71.8.69.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Just having peer reviewed papers does not make him (or his theory) notable, many of those papers have been in the same journal that 199.16 claims Crothers peer reviewed. If nobody has refuted them, it may just mean that they realise Crothers does not understand what he is talking about, however this by Dr Jason Sharples does refute the work of Crothers by claiming Crothers does not understand the maths he is using.Martin 4 5 1  21:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Sharples paper has an insight on the issue raised by Crothers that Newtonian escape velocity was injected into the Schwarzschild black hole solution: “Indeed, by imposing the additional boundary condition AT INFINITY, that THE SOLUTION BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PREDICTIONS OF NEWTONIAN GRAVITATIONAL THEORY, it is found that the constant α = 2m, where m is the mass at the origin.” (Emphasis added.) So relativistic space-time curvature needs to be rescued by Newton’s action at a distance?  How does this strategy, even if it could win a “battle,” so to speak, against Crothers, not loose the war?  Regarding the paper’s claims to invalidate Crothers’ work on other issues, it says: “A coordinate system is defined as a mapping φ (with certain properties) from an open set U of a topological space onto an open set φ(U) of Euclidean space.”   However, it says nothing about the axiomatic validity of the coordinates necessary to the mapping vis-a-vis that Euclidean space.  So even though, as the paper states, “[T]he metric length does not depend on the particular coordinate expression (line-element) representing the metric,” it does not follow that it does not depend on the foundational axiomatic validity.  So how does the paper validly conclude: “The claims [of Crothers] appear to arise from a lack of understanding of the notions of coordinate transformation and metric (coordinate) extension,” when the paper says nothing about the role of the axiomatic foundational validity of the pertinent coordinate systems?  And to the point for the topic of this discussion: is this a question to be answered behind the scenes at Wikipedia? --Reid Barnes (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Reid Barnes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Proponents of the subject's work should understand that physics is an experimental science. New theories are accepted as valuable only if they fit with observation better than old theories. And I might add that the debate here has nothing to do with whether the subject's theories are right or wrong. We only consider if they have been sufficiently noted. And they haven't. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC).
 * re: Reid Barnes, the claim from the IP was that Crothers has not been refuted, but the Shaples paper says otherwise. Wikipedia is not here to decide who is right, but what is notable, i.e. being discussed in third party literature.Martin 4 5 1  23:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the contention that Newtonian escape velocity was inserted into the Hilbert solution has been refuted. Other matters may have been disputed, but that is not the same as refuted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reid Barnes (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)  — Reid Barnes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Off topic. The equations of general relativity are differential equations. In order to solve them one needs to impose boundary conditions. The boundary conditions should agree with observation, -Newtonian gravitation in flat space-time. See, for example: R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, "Coordinate Invariance and Energy Expressions in General Relativity," Phys. Rev. 122 (3), 997-1006 (1961). (needless to say this side-comment has no bearing on the notability of the BLP). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC).


 * The different comments by the various SPAs here have convinced me that there is no notability here: Delete. --Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I believe that for fringe subjects we need coverage in mainstream reliable sources (not just fringe sources) in order to get a properly neutral evaluation of their fringe theories. We don't have such sources in this case and there is no evidence they exist elsewhere. So there's nothing to use as the basis for an acceptable article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subject's views of his critics can be found here. I admire the patience and forbearance of the latter.Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - This biography seems to be a trojan horse for the pushing of novel scientific interpretations. I rather doubt we have a pass under the SNG low bar for academics. A quick Google shows 80,000 hits but through six pages nothing counting to GNG. I'm dubious. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Coatrack and WP:Fringe. Crothers views do not seem to have gained widespread acceptance or even discussion. Quote from the article "and in years of debate I have never seen anyone able to refute him." yet given (mentioned by Xxanthippe above) is it any wonder he has not been successfully challenged.Martin 4 5 1  21:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Retain The article provides information about a theory held by an Australian Professor.  If the information correctly describes his theory, regardless of whether the theory is correct or not, then the entry is a valid one and should be retained.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatRocket (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)  — CatRocket (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It does not matter whether the theory is right or wrong, wikipedia has an article on Invisible Pink Unicorn. The point is notability. A handful of people talking about the theory is not enough to warrant an article for something like this.Martin 4 5 1  23:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So it amounts to a count of people now? Lets count the people who are talking about this person? Mr. Crothers does not profess a theory regardless. The argument he levels against his opponents are that A. They can not prove that the Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, and B. Einstein’s pseudo-tensor is not a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols. Mr. Stephen J. Crothers claims that the Black Hole is the Invisible Pink Unicorn of astronomy. Wavyinfinity (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Correctness is irrelevant to our criteria on notability, for which we do not have enough evidence. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Stephen J. Crothers is a notable dissident of black hole/big bang cosmology. Notable as he has engaged in public debates outlining the issues and inconsistencies of black hole/big bang cosmology. He has engaged J. Sharples and Tom Bridgman on Tom Bridgman's blog here.  Wavyinfinity (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment For interested parties involved in this discussion, it has already been made clear of the scientific fraud perpetuated by establishment because of vested interest. A quick outline of this is available on page 71 in this book:  "Santilli recommends the filing of class actions in U. S. Federal Court against federal funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, jointly with representative institutions abusing public funds without proper scientific process."Wavyinfinity (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And per WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia is not the place to Right great wrongs, (and nor btw, are blogs the usual location for scientific discourse in preference to peer reviewed journals). Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Page creator Wavyinfinity cites Sharples and Bridgman for notability, but neither of these people have made it on Wikipedia themselves. This is fringe and not notable. I will also note the page creator, Wavyinfinity, has a history of pushing such topics on Wikipedia which are then reverted or deleted. Full disclaimer: I deleted one such edit myself. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is not notable. The attempt to insert this article in Wikipedia seems to be just an effort to manufacture notability and credibility for the incoherent beliefs of certain fringe advocates.  We don't need Wikipedia articles on each and every anti-relativity kook in the world. Admittedly it's possible for a crackpot to be notable (or notorious), but I don't think Crothers has achieved the level of Notable Crackpot.  By the way, even if he managed to achieve notability, it would be as a crackpot not a scientist (he clearly has ZERO notability as a scientist), and Wikipedia articles are supposed to focus on the notable aspects of the subject, so the article would have to focus on his crackpotism.  But, again, I don't think he is a prominent enough crackpot to warrant an article. At most, maybe a mention in a "Criticisms of Relativity" article.Urgent01 (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One more comment: Crothers and his admirers have gotten kicked out of other online venues in the past, such as the old sci.physics.research newsgroup, where they have tried to peddle their nonsense. I hope Wikipedia does not have lower standards than Usenet newsgroups.Urgent01 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 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.