Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. BencherliteTalk 14:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory


I believe that this is a WP:FAKEARTICLE violation. It has no chance of entering into the mainspace. jps (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: You are seriously mistaken jps. Had you done a little research, you'd have seen that the article was/is in the mainspace, and was once even nominated for deletion, but the decision was to keep it. It has since been merged with Expanding Earth and subsequently castrated of its content by advocates of mainstream scientific validity, dismissing its WP:Notability merit on which the first 'keep' decision was made. Your assumption is erroneous as the article can potentially be un-merged and return to be independent, perhaps pending improvements and updates. That said, I don't have time for childish games and will not waste any trying to keep this copy it is the only remaining draft of the original page and needed for continued work on the subject. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)(updated) -MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - seems to fall under WP:STALEDRAFT since the last edit to the page was five years ago in June 2008‎. Also, it would seem that any relevant content can be included in the Expanding Earth. I do like Image:Growing_earth.gif and would be happy to add it to the Expanding Earth article. Also, MichaelNetzer, is there something from the User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory draft that you think should be in the Expanding Earth article? My initial reaction was to recommend deletion, but this might be a situation where the draft contains good information but there still is disagreement on how best to convey that information in main space. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Response - I think the article merits being un-merged from Expanding Earth and restored, updated and improved, as indicated in the original attempt to delete it in 2007 in which the consensus was to Keep due to established notability of the topic, which has grown since and many more sources exist for it. But this became a complicated issue as the article was protested by "scientific validity" editors who upon not being able to delete it, worked together to merge with Expanding Earth and then remove most of its content. The editor suggesting this deletion now is also suggesting to delete Expanding Earth because some editors (including myself) are trying to edit the page based on its WP:Notability and to shift the emphasis in the article from mainstream scientific validity according to Wikipedia guidelines (you can review the talk page there see the current status of the discussion). The move to delete my Sandbox copies of this page appears to be a response to my discussions there. I frankly find most discussion with these editors to have become a waste of time and don't see a viable option such as you suggest, and which I also support, to restore this information to the mainspace. Growing Earth and Expanding Earth appear to be a target of mainstream oriented editors for removing notable reliably sourced information about the subject from Wikpedia because the theories have been dismissed by mainstream science. I believe this situation does a great disservice to the encyclopedia on this subject but I haven't been able to help convince or change the situation. So, I'm now resigned to just let them do what they want. MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a difference between Growing Earth and Expanding Earth? It seems like Growing Earth Theory would fit under Expanding Earth theory. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Such efforts have been blocked because Growing Earth is not a peer reviewed mainstream theory like the other content of Expanding Earth theory.
 * Most of the content of this Growing Earth article was first introduced in Expanding Earth.
 * Editors then suggested it was encumbering the article and it was decided to split them.
 * Addition of mass was actually inferred since the beginning of Expanding Earth by Samuel Carey in the 1950's, though as a geologist he had no idea about a mechanism and said that it's an issue for cosmology and physics.
 * Growing Earth was the first to propose a mechanism for addition of mass, suggested in the new name: Growing, not merely expanding.
 * For the last decade or so, Expanding Earth has proliferated in two directions. One is the academic scholarly work of scientists like Scalera, Maxwell, Herndon and others. The other is wide popular debate outside of the academic environment that's received significant media coverage. Growing Earth belongs to the latter.
 * Based on notability in RS media, Growing Earth merits it own page because much of its content is distinct from, though also overlapping, the classic Expanding Earth theory - and has its own notable sources. But it's not necessary to have a separate page if it could be sufficiently elaborated on in an Expanding Earth section, as you suggest.
 * I think, however, that it's all somewhat moot at this point. Some editors are preventing any such direction to the article, making it only about its scientific validity and removing any significant information about the theory itself and the extensive debate about it in popular RS media.
 * As the article reads now, its emphasis is almost entirely on its lack of scientific validity, and not on actual information about the theory.
 * A shift seems necessary that would allow for elaboration on the theory throughout its various incarnations, followed by rebuttals from the mainstream consensus.
 * MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I still do not understand how Growing Earth is distinct from the classic Expanding Earth theory. It looks like Expanding Earth absorbed stuff from outside Earth within Earth and transforms that into mass/matter whereas Growing Earth uses existing stuff within Earth and transforms that into mass/matter. Your draft has a variety of problems. First, the first sentence needs to convey what Growing Earth is. The lead sentence "Growing Earth Hypothesis is a derivative of Expanding Earth theory." conveys nothing about Growing Earth. The way the draft is written makes the draft more about publicizing people who added to the theory rather than conveying information about the theory. The draft tries to establish credibility though name dropping rather than merely convey information about the topic. I would rewrite the draft by removing all the names of people in the article, except perhaps give origination credit to Neal Adams, and just focus on telling the chronological story of the Growing Earth theory and the features of the theory. You really only need a lead paragraph, history section, and theory details section. As for it being pseudoscience, you only need to indicate upfront that the theory is not generally accepted. There is no reason to attach a disclaimer to just about every sentence in the article or even have a criticism section. As for this MfD, you need only explain why you need the draft per WP:UP, such as notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think to understand the difference it's essential to understand the history. Most of the geological evidence for earth expansion was laid out by Carey in the late 50's and early 60's. The theory was dismissed in favor of Plate Tectonics mainly because of the introduction of subduction and because Carey could not offer a mechanism based in cosmology and particle physics for expansion. But his geological evidence remained sound and scientifically compelling. Over the years, notable geologists, geophysicists and scientists (Scalera, Maxwell, Herndon etc...) continued writing, debating and expounding on evidence for expansion and many inconsistencies in Plate Tectonics, some suggesting a variety of mechanisms, including the accretion idea you suggested. But none of this work was considered scientifically valid by the mainstream and because these scientist were not in the public eye, their efforts remained relatively low key. When Adams, a popular comic book artists who'd studied a wide range of sciences independently, produced the videos and laid out a possible mechanism (Pair Production) in particle physics for expansion, he insisted that Expanding was an improper term because according to his view, the earth was Growing in new mass...not merely inflating, so to speak. Being more in the public eye, outside of he scientific community, Adams succeeded in generating a wide popular interest in the original theory and his new incarnation of it, that he called Growing Earth. This interest became wide spread, and has gained much reliable media coverage, that it is raising a backlash response from the scientific community and some science journalists...which is all actually contributing to an increasing notability of both the original theory and Adams' new incarnation of it. I think this is the primary sense that distinguishes the two.
 * I joined WP in 2006 and wrote most of that article in 2007, still relatively inexperienced with encyclopedic content. What you say about it is true, which is why I noted above that it needs improvement and updating. Thanks for the suggestions.
 * I'll also take your advice for trying to keep this draft. MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keeping the draft merely requires you to continue working on it, see WP:UP, or have need for it as notes from which you will work on other articles (see WP:UPYES - Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities). Whether to name the article Growing earth or Expanding earth is dealt with via WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. As for the Growing earth topic's chance of entering into the mainspace, WP:GNG only requires that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Adams causing the topic to gain media coverage helps the Wikipedia GNG notability of the topic. The article is not in main space because the topic lacks scientific validity. Rather, the article is not in main space because the draft is not written in a neutral way. If you can get the draft to meet WP:PSCI, then it should be ready for mainspace. Much of science is built on ideas that turn out to be wrong. I have not heard of growing earth before this thread, but it seems to have enough to it to explore as a scientific idea. For example, the outer surface of the gas giants and the sun would seem to be/have been affected by their size change. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems to have potential for an article. The ones that should be removed are the ones that don't. WP covers pseudoscience, and the article even in its current form makes that status very clear. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Very stale draft and essentially is a fork of the existing expanding earth article . IRWolfie- (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. User space is not for storing preferred versions of articles. This is a copy paste version without attribution. Already exists in the history of Growing Earth hypothesis so no need to preserve here. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:STALEDRAFT. Not edited by  creator since 4 June 2008‎. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, it's looking like the deletes have it; 5+ years is pretty stale. MichaelNetzer, do you intend to keep working on this? --BDD (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do intend to get back to it, but as duffbeerforme said, it already exists in the history of Growing Earth hypothesis. No special reason to keep it, if it violates policy (which I'm not convinced it does), or gets under the skin of some editors. MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:STALEDRAFT, which notes "userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." -- Jreferee (talk) 11:11, 19 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.