Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Foundation for the Study of Cycles


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Lots of conditional votes on this one, and a few edits to the article, but whatever way I read the debate I don't quite see a consensus to delete. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation for the Study of Cycles
Delete: Non-notable fringe organization, misleadingly portrayed in this article as a respectable part of mainstream science, which is utterly untrue. User:RayTomes promotes vapid numerological mysticism in UseNet postings, his own websites, and WP articles like this one. See related past AfDs on Harmonics Theory, Articles for deletion/Cycle synchrony, and Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_20, and see current AfDs on Cycle Theory/Cycles Research Institute/Unified Theory of Cycles and Edward R. Dewey. Note that both "Cycles Research Institute" and "Foundation for the Study of Cycles" were apparently founded by Tomes, although it is not clear whether they really consist of more than a website (the only information seems to come from members of these organizations). Note too that "Harmonics theory" is a cranky "theory" due to Tomes. ---CH 03:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's an article about the organisation, not the concept. - Richardcavell 04:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, if rewritten to achieve NPOV. --die Baumfabrik 05:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless rewitten to achieve NPOV (which I don't really expect to happen).   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  08:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 13:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless rewritten. --Ter e nce Ong 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as we can establish notability. Certainly a pseudoscientific organization should be kept if it is notable, even if it is psuedoscientific.  Presumably we have articles on Scientology?  In any case, I seem to get 10^4 Ghits which seems like a lot to me, although admittedly a lot of these are mirrors.  Again, let me say that I'm not claiming notability here, and could be convinced otherwise, but if this organization is reasonably notable then there is not reason not to have a NPOV article about it. --Deville (Talk) 15:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Update I went through the article with a view towards removing POV, and I have to say that I don't feel this article is really POV at all. It simply says that there is an organization which makes certain claims and publishes certain magazines.  What is the POV problem here, really? --Deville (Talk) 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Deville, when you Googled, did you examine whether you were finding any hits not originating from websites by Ray Tomes, wiki articles by Ray Tomes, posts to various newsgroups by Ray Tomes, blog entries by Ray Tomes? Note that Tomes apparently has registered a number of websites, some of which have been mentioned in various of the these AfD discussions.  When I did this search, I couldn't find ANY information about Dewey or Tomes's crank theories on the web which did not appear to have been created by Tomes (or a suspected sock).  He has been enthusiastically promoting his ideas in many venues, so much so that the prospect of 10,000 hits manufactured by Tomes himself does not seem unlikely.   Now, do we really want to encourage all the worlds cranks to simply make sufficiently many blog, newsgroup, or wiki postings to promote themselves from a non-notatable crank to a "notable" crank?  I think not!  ---CH 03:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to Edward R. Dewey. The Land 17:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Edward R. Dewey, contingent on finding WP:RS. —porg es (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite to NPOV. Beno1000 00:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per The Land and porg Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Ruud 20:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, contingent on finding external sources that mention it. If no such sources are included in the article by the closing of the AfD, weak delete instead. --Christopher Thomas 23:55, 2 May 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.