Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocentric universe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. A majority of editors have argued to keep the article, and their arguments have been convincing with regards to coverage of the topic. Arguments against keeping focused on the theory's scientific merits, which is beyond the scope of this discussion, or made mistaken claims about the article's sourcing. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentric universe

[edit]
Biocentric universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced this article is notable. Yes there was a splash in the news at the time, but that was all. No other, newer, sources have really been forthcoming. All sources are dated to a 2 year period (2006-2007), seems to fall afoul of (WP:NOTNEWS). There was no enduring coverage of the idea of a biocentric universe, and uptake appears to be limited to Robert Lanza himself; i.e All the sources discuss Lanza and Biocentrism together. Without any clear signs of notability, independent of Lanza (WP:NOTINHERITED) it seems that the article should be deleted, and any coverage limited to the Lanza article. Note that about half the sources are primary. Not to be confused with: Biocentrism_(ethics). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea--that’s how it started out, but it quickly blew out of control and the editors moved it to its own page. Dragging this topic over to a living persons page would be a mistake. The cycle would occur all over again.Josophie (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC) I forgot to mention that the book "Biocentrism" was co-authored by Professor Bob Berman who has been listed as the most widely read astronomer in the world (not just Lanza) Josophie (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source please. Notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: Discover magazine published an article about biocentrism in 2009, Digital Journal published an article about it just last month, and Psychology Today publishes an ongoing series of articles on the topic (albeit penned by Lanza). Coverage is non-routine, significant, and not limited to any specific timeframe such as circa 2006-2007. Moreover, biocentrism is a philosophical concept, not a news item per se nor tied specifically to Lanza. Via Google Scholar, I encountered some promising sources that don't seem directly associated with Lanza's work: [1][2] I even found a paper stating that a "'biocentric' view of the universe" was proposed as far back as 1913 [3] (although I don't know to what degree that may relate to this article). It does seem to me though that the article should be expanded beyond Lanza's take on biocentrism, and perhaps even renamed to something like Biocentrism (philosophy). In short, this topic appears to satisfy WP:GNG apart from Lanza. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discover magazine article says that it is adapted from Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, by Robert Lanza with Bob Berman, published by BenBella Books in May 2009; while Psychology Today articles are written by Robert Lanza, so it is primary source. Older mentions of the word "biocentrism" don't talk about it in Lanza's sense, some of them are more closely related to biocentrism (ethics)
Existence of Biocentrism (ethics) article is the reason why this article wasn't renamed to Biocentrism (philosophy); in latest move proposal, after proposing the move to Biocentrism (metaphysics), consensus has been reached that article should be renamed to Biocentric universe. --93.139.120.41 (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — 93.139.120.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Digital Journal is not a reliable source, it accepts user generated content. The discovery magazine piece: Discover magazine was written by Lanza, so doesn't contribute to notability. [4][5] and [6] refer to a different topic: Biocentrism (ethics). This is evident from a cursory look at them, and also because the articles were written before biocentrism was proposed. The reason we can't have Biocentrism (philosophy) as that will cause lots of confusion with the other concept of the same name. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wolfie, you never give up. Your attacks on this page have been non-stop. You have a non-neutral POV; indeed, a conflict-of-interest, in that biocentrism/biocentric universe theory is a direct challenge to your (self-admitted) field of study. Put simply—this is a move to stuffle dessent. Your claim of lack of notability and drop-off of coverage is simply incorrect. To the contrary, according to Google the number of websites, blogs, and online material related to this topic has increased five-fold in the last year or two (from approximately 20K to 111,000 listings as of today). In fact, according to Wikipedia’s own traffic statistics, this page (that you want to delete) was viewed 18,203 times during the first three months of this year (by contrast, this page was only viewed 6769 times during the first three months of 2008). You claim there’s no new material/coverage of the idea? You ignore little facts, such as that biocentrism/biocentric universe was recently featured on the Science Channel Science (TV), on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, among other places. New videos and blogs on the topic have been viewed millions of times. Articles on biocentrism were some of the most viewed articles on the Huffington Post and Psychology Today in recent years. Bottom line: major articles, books etc come in spurts, and my guess is that you’ve just seen the beginning of a theory ready to take off.Josophie (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please not make personal attacks against me. Your arguments are essentially WP:GOOGLEHITS based. An argument about what was the most viewed article at the time doesn't indicate long term notability (and you haven't provided enough information to prove it was the case). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this joke? Your comments against me and other editors on the Talk page have been very personal, vicious, and uncivil.Josophie (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia certainly should (and does) cover crank topics if they have been shown to be notable enough and clearly identified as fringe. A common ploy of fringers is to attempt to disguise their work as mainstream science. I am not advocating deletion of this article on the grounds that it fringe but on the grounds that its topic has not yet achieved sufficient notability as demonstrated by multiple independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Crank? You have no idea what you’re talking about. Are the Nobel laureates and members of the National Academy of Sciences who support it cranks? Nobel laureate Thomas said “The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole.” NASA Astrophysicist David Thompson said it “is a wake-up call.” Physicist Scott Tyson said "Dr. Lanza’s writings provided me with the pieces of perspective that I had been desperately seeking [when it came to particle physics]” Dr. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, said “True, yes; politically correct, hell no.” Renowned scientist, Boyce Professor & Chairman at Wake Forest University said “This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come.” R. Stephen Berry, Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago; past Home Secretary, National Academy of Sciences said “I like to see books published that challenge my own ideas and thoughts in ways that make me think, but not ones that simply throw dogma at me.” NASA Geophysicist Gunther Kletetschka said “Lanza has come up with an innovative approach to investigate reality from the viewpoint of biology.”Josophie (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic is as important as its supporters claimed it to be then it will undoubtedly survive deletion on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Do you really need me to outline the significant level of references for this subject from incredibly reliable sources there are on this topic. I mean, have you seen how important editors, including the nominator of this article of deletion, have claimed negative articles about the subject are??? You can't all of the sudden claim there is no notability after wasting dozens of our volunteer hours on claiming we should be looking at negative, "reliable" sources--make up your mind!!! This article is starting to drive me crazy :) I won't even vote unless it seems necessary, on such a frivolous topic, ugh. Leave Collect alone. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. Yes there are some sources, as I've indicated at the top, but they are short term news coverage from a single period. There is no evidence of a lasting impact which is the true demonstrator of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you just ignore the facts. Repeating an incorrect statement doesn't make it true. Again, according to Wiki’s traffic statistics, this page was viewed over eighteen-thousand times during the first 3 months of this year (and only 6769 times during the first 3 months of 2008). As far a lasting impact, the book just came out a few years ago--give it another few years and then say that.Josophie (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't base notability by the number of views an article on wikipedia gets per WP:POPULARPAGE (also most of the hits could also be people looking for Biocentrism (ethics)). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL), we look for notability now, not as the result of some proposed future acceptance. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfie is correct here that whether the topic might become better accepted down the road doesn't matter to Wikipedia, and that website hits don't matter to its notability policy, but I don't agree with his/her application of a confusing similarity argument here as an argument against the subject's notability. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can not deny that most of what people appear to be arguing, in this very AfD, is for the notability of a slew of different topics including ethical biocentrism, Biophilia hypothesis and fine tuning arguments etc into a bit of a mishmash and not the actual proposal by Lanza, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop spreading misinformation. You are dead wrong: The fine-tuning of the universe for life is one of the foundational principles of biocentrism. The fifth Principle of Biocentrism explicitly states “The very structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around.” There is an entire chapter in Robert Lanza and Bob Berman's book 'Biocentrism" devoted to the structure of the universe itself, and to the laws, forces, and constants of the universe.Josophie (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biocentrism is not the Fine-tuned Universe argument. If you want to argue it is, then that's an argument against having this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mike Agricola's reasoning debunks the reasoning for deletion. Whether one believes in this or not, this topic has notability. Sidelight12 Talk
Agricola showed a collection of primary sources, self published sources, and he also linked to articles that have nothing to do with this topic but are about Biocentrism (ethics). So I'm a little concerned that you think this "debunks" anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still notable. Will Biology Solve the Universe?, also the newly listed sources. Lanza's works were cited to refer to his own theory. Sidelight12 Talk 23:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Robert Lanza: With exactly ZERO mention by independent scholars in the scholarly literature on philosophy and science, this theory is clearly not notable, even as fringe philosophy or science. Arguments for keep boil down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which is a reliable source for philosophical or scientific theories. Mentions in pop-lit sources like Discover and Psychology Today attest perhaps to newsworthiness and public interest, but not to notability within the scholarly community or the world at large. These sources intend solely to provide their readers entertainment, and not reliable information on serious topics. They often publish entertaining material submitted by self-aggrandizing cranks, as seems to be the case here. Topic inherits no notability from its originator. Scattered, sporadic and unrealted mentions of the term in various other sources do not support the proposition that there is a notable topic here upon which to write a free-standing article. There is already a free-standing article for any notable uses of the term at Biocentrism (ethics). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is false. A cursory scan found at least 70 articles on Google Scholar that specifically reference this idea (excluding the ethical concept), not to mention numerous books on AmazonJosophie (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See falsifiability. You make claims that we can't falsify. You mention 70 articles on google scholar, but provide no link so that we can actually look at it, you mention unspecified books. Pick the most reliable book, the most reliable google scholar article and show us them. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any independent cites on Google scholar that refer to the book. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
You obviously didn't look. Here is a list of 27 references that Google Scholar lists just for Robert Lanza and astronomer Bob Berman’s book “Biocentrism” http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16642817250061812158&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0,22&hl=en Josophie (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all those sources are unreliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Below in this discussion you've characterized sources as those that were "not really reliable", which means by implication that there also exist "really reliable" sources.  By extension, your usage of the word "unreliable" here creates "really unreliable" and "not really unreliable" sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of arguing from semantics here. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you kindly point to me where WP:GNG requires sources for an article to come from academic sources? As far as I can tell, it doesn't, which means your argument is invalid. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are arguing it has had an impact as a proposed theory, academic sources would be expected to exist. 10:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Additional sources out there not yet used in the article include:
  1. http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/06/16/4351357-the-universe-in-your-head
  2. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-04-22/news/29463116_1_consciousness-universe-hot-dog
  3. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/03/robert_lanza_do/
  4. http://www.science20.com/science_20/unobservable_universe_unobservable_science-81557
Just so we all know there are additional sources out there beyond those in this article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, he got some news coverage at the time, but nothing indicative of true notability for the biocentric universe (remember Lanza himself isn't at AfD here). [7] and [8] are uncritical, and not really reliable, little above press releases. science20.com (a source I've never heard of) only gives a passing mention, because it's not about biocentrism, it doesn't even discuss it briefly. [9] is interesting, but it's opinion and informal, and from the time period I mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A philosophy concept is not an event, so WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply, but ignoring that that point has already been noted, you say (emphasis added), "...got...news coverage at the time", and "from the time period I mentioned".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both of those quotes referring to the newspaper coverage at the time of the event. What an event is, is rather ill-defined. The event is the period just before and after the release of his Biocentrism book. The news coverage is standard coverage of a topic that is quirky, but there is no lasting sign of enduring notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting that a concept is actually the release of a book, in order to assert that the concept is an event that got newspaper coverage so can be excluded under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, does not make it so.  A concept is not, as per Wiktionary, "An occurrence; something that happens."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that most of the coverage is actually related to the release of the book, and Lanza's promotion work around that. That is why it's in that two year period. That is an event. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you are making false statements. When the theory came out in the American Scholar in 2007, it was followed by an equal or greater amount of coverage. The same thing happened when other pieces on the topic appeared in journals and major websites in recent years. The overall coverage (except for a few spikes here and there) has been consistent (and increasing) over the years as witnessed by Google citations and Wiki's own numbers.Josophie (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are more than enough sources to demonstrate notability, and even for the sake of argument accepting what IRWolfie- says: "All sources are dated to a 2 year period (2006-2007)" we don't delete articles just because no-one is writing about them any more, and I agree with Unscintillating above that IRWolfie- is being tricky in trying to cast this article as about a news event. Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notability is not temporary. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of sources already listed in the article, as well as a few more added in the discussion above. Additionally, here is a sampling of other articles that reference biocentrism:
  1. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2011.0786
  2. http://isle.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/274.short
  3. http://smithsonianrex.si.edu/sisp/index.php/pop/article/view/289
  4. http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/6/622.short
  5. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1627486
  6. http://www.dhushara.com/cosfcos/cosfcos.html
  7. http://jis.athabascau.ca/index.php/jis/article/view/26
  8. http://cct.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/Ch+12+-+final.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 29sh00 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you differentiate for us the difference between those based on Lanza's ideas and those for the ethical concept, which is different? Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 specifically discusses whether or not the universe is fine-tuned for life and biocentric. References 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all specifically cite Lanza (Biocentrism 2009). 29sh00 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biocentrism is not to be confused with Fine-tuning arguments. Also, being cited isn't the same as significant coverage. For example, this piece [10] you cited, is about William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, has a footnote to the text "Human life certainly plays a significant role in current ecological theories, from the Gaia hypothesis that views the earth as a self-regulating superorganism to the biophilia hypothesis.", the footnote says "See Kellert and Wilson. See also Lanza and Berman. The biophilia hypothesis and the concept of biodiversity both imply the value (to humans) of non-human life forms. Gaia as a ...". It's in reference to the Biophilia hypothesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Lanza. It has no independent notability. It was covered at the time, but has no significant importance. To the extent it's meaningful, it would be considered fringe, and non notable fringe at that. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this completely inappropriate. "Biocentrism" was written and developed by BOTH Robert Lanza and astronomer Bob Berman. Not just one person. This is a topic, not about a single living personJosophie (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can someone please produce the talk page discussions that resulted in this article being taken out of the Lanza page, so that we do not just simply move back and forth on the issue. If the article was created due to a decision that the material should not be on the Lanza page, let's at least take that into consideration here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: 1) There are more than enough sources listed here and in the article to support notability. 2) If Bob Berman is a co-author, shouldn't this theory have its own article instead of being merged into Lanza's article? 3) There are references listed in this discussion that are not yet included in the article. I don't understand why we're debating a merge or deletion before adding available information. HtownCat (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an AfD for the book, but the concept, which Lanza alone appears to consistently promote and be associated with. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As others above have indicated, your arguments to delete this page are frivolous. Lanza alone? There are over a 100,000 websites promoting the concept biocentrism/biocenric universe (check Google)Josophie (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop with the grandiose and nonsensical promotion. 100,000 hits from google doesn't mean there are 100,000 websites promoting the concept. Also read WP:GOOGLEHITS, which I already mentioned. It's a non-argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfie is right here and it is getting distracting, even if his words aren't exactly assuming of good faith.Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not Merge: Obviously this article isn't getting deleted, but I'm concerned about the push to merge the article. The subject means GNG from the sources already in the article, and notability is not temporary. To merge the article would make no sense, as this article is quite lengthy in comparison to the Lanza article and merging it would give undue balance to the subject of Biocentrism in Lanza's career if added to his page. That means a lot of this article would have to be removed (items that are well-sourced) in order to not create an undue balance to the subject in the Lanza article. It is a sneaky backdoor way of culling parts of the article, rather than letting it stand, in my opinion. Many of these arguments here are based on the faulty belief that academic articles are required to discuss a hypothetical situation, which is just not true. News sources are fine. It is also complete nonsense that a concept must have a lot of adherents to appear on Wikipedia; it just has to be notable. There seems to be a whole lot of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT going on here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum to vote: I would also point to WP:PAGEDECIDE as a much better source to make our decision. Clause one asks if a page needs context for a subject to be understood, which Biocentrism clearly does due to its controversial nature, so that means it should have its own standalone page. Clause two has to do with related topics, and Lanza's career and Biocentrism are separate enough to merit Biocentrism a stand alone page. Clause three warns against created a permanent stub, and let's just say this article is not a stub. The policy also warns against making a decision on our likes and dislikes, which I feel is being done above. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've read that backwards. The "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page" is an example of a case to not have a separate article. You have argued for a merger. Biocentrism is inexplicably tied to lanza, any source that discusses it discusses Lanza. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's just silly. There is no larger article, this one is comparable to the Lanza article :) Nice try though. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try? read the the examples they give. They are for sections that don't have stand alone articles, but are placed in context in another article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nice try :) You ignore most of the argument for the one thing you might be able to pick apart. 1) You're misreading the document, 2) you're distracting the overall argument, and 3) as long as I have you here, why on earth would you be heavily involved in editing an article for over a year and then suddenly try to delete it? Something smells fishy here beyond the red herrings :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lanza and biocentrism are two different subjects. If it is showing to have notability, why is it then suggested to be merged? Sidelight12 Talk 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from article. Sidelight12 Talk 02:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Seven days into the AfD, and, in spite of abundant Google dumping, still not a single word in a single source that can be considered reliable for either philosophical or scientific topics, and not a single source that can be used to establish notability, even as a fringe topic. The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES provided attest only to limited and fleeting newsworthiness and popularity within the fringe community, but not at all to notability within the schoalrly philosophical or scientific communities, or to any lasting notability in the world at large. Still see nothing worth saving, and if the editors at the proposed merge target, Robert Lanza, agree that it doesn't belong there, there is no point in merging. Sorry, it's just a fart in the wind, like so many similar "theories of everthing" the WooWooSphere is littered with. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) You seem to think scientific notability is relevant here, this is a conceptual matter that passes GNG. The entire point to the last argument about this page, the RFC for name change, was that it was neither a philosophical page nor a firm scientific page. It is about an idea. And ideas can be notable. 2) Notability is not temporary, so your fleeting argument is moot. 3) This is not a theory of everything, it is an idea to put biology first in science, please try and familiarize yourself with the subject matter. 4) Please try and be a little bit more civil there DV. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange, because some of the keep votes, Josophie, are arguing it's a theory of everything, and yet I don't see you berating them. Proponents purport it to be a theory of everything. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be amply demonstrated here for any reasonable editor that this is notable and well sourced, despite the usual handwaving from a relative few who typically argue their own expertise against the sources, because they "know" the "Truth" of the matter. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I admit that I was somewhat hasty in composing my earlier "keep" vote and didn't look closely enough at some of the sources I found via a quick Google search. However, after taking the time to give this a more careful consideration, my "keep" vote still stands. This article is about a *concept* that impacts broadly on science, metaphysics and even theology/spirituality. It is not an event, so the limitation that WP:NOTNEWS imposes on duration of coverage cannot apply here. As others have pointed out, the notability of a metaphysical concept is not temporary. Moreover, a concept does not need to have extensive coverage in peer-reviewed journals to be notable according to WP's standards. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES warns against accepting sources that are not reliable and may only have trivial mentions. This AfD and the article's reference already contain multiple sources published by reliable media outlets that are independent and cover the topic at significant length. Although not peer-reviewed, WP in general still accepts sources of this nature as reliable so long as the media outlet utilizes a system of editorial review and holds to professional journalism standards. Finally, I located a few additional sources too that appear to be of good quality: A review of Lanza's version of biocentrism was penned by Dr. Vinod Kuma, an associate editor of the journal Phase Transitions, and posted on Nirmukta. Other reviews were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (PDF file) and the Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. The WP article about the Journal of Scientific Exploration states that it is peer-reviewed and the other aformentioned journal offers at least some degree of peer review [11]. Considering all these sources collectively, it is still my opinion that WP:GNG is met. --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to base your reasoning off the Journal of Scientific Exploration please read the entire article: "Critics of the journal regard it as a forum for promoting, not investigating, fringe science". It's not a reliable source, the same with Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research by "QuantumDream, Inc.". Nirmukta is a blog, it's fine for personal opinions and to provide NPOV, but it's not a secondary source of information. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is founded upon the availability of many sources which collectively satisfy WP:GNG and not on the Journal of Scientific Exploration alone or any other single source. Even if none of the three sources I mentioned as an addendum to my comment are acceptable, the collective weight of all the media sources which have published significant coverage of this concept is still sufficient to make the article notable. However, let's consider these two of these sources at greater length. (1) A blog can be a reliable secondary source under certain conditions: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable." Vinod Kuma, the blog's author, is a professional researcher commenting on the scientific aspects of Lanza's biocentrism, so that is within his field. Moreover, Nirmukta is the organizational publication (in the format of a blog) for an Indian Freethought society of that name; it's not Kuma's personal blog. (2) The papers and reviews the JSE publishes are all peer-reviewed by well-qualified individuals. That system of editorial control and review by qualified individuals makes it a WP:RS, even though it has received criticism for publishing papers on controversial topics. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what, therefore it's bullshit? The fringe promotion part is cited from statements by Frazier and Kalichman. JSE has a bad reputation, and it's not reliable for anything except opinion. Let me quote Jimbo Wales, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_85#Can_a_controversial_subject_make_reference_to_subject-relevant_peer-reviewed_journals.3F: "To be clear on my view. Based on this conversation, it seems abundantly clear that SciEx is completely and utterly useless as a source for anything serious at all. People who publish such things, and participate in such things, should be ashamed of themselves. The Journal may have some value as a source, if it is influential amongst crackpots, to document the sort of nonsense that they are willing to publish while pretending to academic standards." IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice red herrings, your choice to associate yourself with a term for excrement is reminiscent of DV above bringing a word for flatulence "generally considered unsuitable in formal situations" into this discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your use of the word "promotion" suggests that Richard Conn Henry was writing in JSE to promote...just what?  The JSE, Richard Conn Henry, or maybe the Johns Hopkins University astronomy department?  And are you implying that Jimbo Wales was calling the Johns Hopkins University astronomy department crackpots?  According to our article, [Johns Hopkins University School of Arts and Sciences], the JHU "...Astronomy Physics & Astronomy department [is] among the top-ranked in the nation".  Or maybe you think that Jimbo Wales literally means that Richard Conn Henry should be ashamed of himself?  No, you've taken the meaning out of context.  The attention given by Richard Conn Henry in JSE to the topic is evidence of notability, which says nothing and need say nothing about whether or not the topic itself is considered to be on the fringes of science, or science at all, or something "serious".  As per WP:IRS, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."  WP:IRS has much more to say, but the sum remains that this article on JSE dated September 2009 is reliable for the purpose of observing, as per the nutshell of WP:N, that the topic has received attention from the world at large over a period of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that is a blatant straw man, and you know it. Obviously it implies nothing about the JHU as a whole. Despite what fringe proponents would claim, scientists don't lose their jobs just because they publish in fringe journals, and it also doesn't mean his faculty agree with him. Brian Josephson, for example, is known for his fringe opinions on fringe issues, but that clearly doesn't mean people in Cambridge agree as a whole with what he says, or that we treat his opinion as expert opinion on fringe issues. He has an opinion, he's entitled to it, but that doesn't mean we treat it as expert. We don't treat those comments published in fringe journals as reliable expert opinions. Richard Conn Henry is an astronomer, he is not a cosmologist, though the difference may be lost on you; so what expertise is he bringing to the table exactly (protip: Astronomers don't need expertise in quantum mechanics)? Significant coverage in reliable mainstream scientific publications would be a better indicator of notability. The same notability requirement for other fringe theories, say Conformal cyclic cosmology. Fringe unreliable sources aren't reliable indicators of notability. If you want to argue something unreliable is notable at the very least you look to mainstream sources; i.e stuff that lots of people actually look at IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you count how many times someone uses a particular word and that somehow translates into whether it is an argument by assertion. That makes sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your claim that astronomers are not qualified to write on cosmology, if you look at the article on cosmology, you will see (emphasis added) that "Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers..."  As for your "protip", Richard Conn Henry is also an astrophysicist, and if you read the review you will see that the term "quantum mechanics" appears four times therein, not that that has anything at all to do with WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"if you look at the article on cosmology, you will ..." No. You are wrong, and citing other wikipedia articles to prove something when you complain about other articles is just plain silly (particularly when it's tagged with an OR tag, cites the Oxford dictionary as its source, and the entire article only has 6 references ... ). I have relevant qualifications in Astronomy, I know where the expertise of astronomers and astrophysics lie. Yet here you are citing a paragraph cited to the Oxford dictionary (but which fails verification) in a class C wikipedia article for your proof like you somehow win the argument. Astronomers do not have specialist skills in understanding cosmology, nor does the average astrophysicist (do you realise how diverse astrophysics is?). FYI his own page says he is an astronomer [12], I glanced at some of his papers from [13], some examples [14][15]. they are astronomy. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your concepts of notability and reliability, you've not cited any guidelines, not even an essay.  There is no requirement in WP:GNG to use IRWolfie's definition of "mainstream sources".  You declared above that articles published by Times of India (which has the largest newsprint circulation in the English world) and nbcnews.com were "not really reliable".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The initial point remains that you added material into the JSE article without providing a citation, and above you cited yourself without identifying yourself as partially the source of the material.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And why? Should I tell you what parts of every article I wrote if I link it? That's patently absurd. The text about promoting fringe wasn't added by me anyway, so what's your point beyond muddying the waters of this discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is that you added unsourced opinion to a Wikipedia article and represented it in this AfD discussion as fact, had the opportunity to redact or clarify, and declined.  I expect that there are many points, but one is that you might want to reconsider your role at Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm generally a friend to articles on alternative science.But I regard the keep arguments here as basically ITHINKITSNOTABLE, when it is just the speculations of an individual that have gotten almost no further discussion in the literature. It shouldbe covered, but as part of the article on the principal proponent. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the work this theory was built up from, and the reception to Lanza's theory? For notability, its cited by reputable sources unaffiliated with Lanza or Berman. Biocentrism is accredited to two scientists, so how would the text be equally distributed between the two? How would you compare it to another theory proposed by few scientists? The big bang theory, before the universe's expansion was measured. Sidelight12 Talk 04:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing it to the big bang theory, an actual scientific theory? The big bang theory had evidence to support it when it was first proposed. Lanza released his book, he got some newspaper and magazine coverage before and after, but then it all fizzled away. That indicates non-notability IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its an example. It took years of research afterwards for that theory to be the frontrunner of accepted theories. The big bang theory didn't have much evidence when it started out, rather it was based off of the evidence you speak of. It was a theory based off of observations, math and other people's work, similar to this. It took years for supporting evidence to come forth. Sidelight12 Talk 11:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biocentric_universe&oldid=1068827118"