Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercausality


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Supercausality
Partner artilce to retrocausality which is also up for deletion. This article is even worse having no sources that follow its reasoning and being almost completely original research amalgamation. In particular, the energy equation quoted is a pretty famous result from special relativity and certainly has nothing to do with causality in its bald form. The term itself is not used, and even the reference to Einstein is inappropriate (since German words are not neologisms when they are squashed together: Einstein wasn't referring to a new concept, he was describing the forward arrow of time when he used the term).

--ScienceApologist 07:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced article presents itself as science, misrepresenting the information it throws out there. The energy equation is thrown in, creating the illusion of meaningful when it's actually irrelevant. Article is poorly written, violating rules regarding OR, neologisms, and probably POV. POV is invoked if this is simply an interpretation instead of deliberate misrepresentation. At best, the information that would remain after deleting the bogus part of its contents would barely merit a dictionary entry. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research. Bogus science, with no reliable sourcing. -- SCZenz 07:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 07:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This referencing of random unrelated sources along with a few unreliable sources is annoying, and seems to be happening with increasing frequency. But perhaps Retrocausality and Supercausality should have been listed together? --Philosophus T 07:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Mike Peel 09:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:V, WP:OR. Ter e nce Ong 09:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is original metaphysical research. Dr. Submillimeter 10:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom, no reliable sources. Awolf002 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect/add brief sourced mention to Albert Einstein, possibly under the unified field theory section Abraham Pais, colleague and biographer of Einstein, believes Supercasuality was indeed a coinage of Einstein's and is related to his search for a Unified Field Theory. Other biographers of Einstein also suggest that Einstein was referring to a new, but vaguely defined, concept None of these sources treat Einstein's phrase as a just an ordinary "squashing together" of German words, nor does "the arrow of time" come up. Bwithh 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in default of specific, reliable sources indicating that this term has been used in any meaningful way. Anville 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and make sure this is covered under QM Handshake / Transactional model. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Długosz (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete, seems to be some confused statement of basic principles. linas 01:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Terence Ong --EMS | Talk 21:21, 19 December 2006 (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.