- 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. Deor ( talk) 11:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Maxim Makukov
- Maxim Makukov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This WP:FRINGEBLP is being sourced primarily to sensationalist tabloid stories of a "News of the Weird" variety. This is in defiance of our WP:NFRINGE guideline which states "Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season)." Further, the subject does not satisfy the WP:PROF level we would require for academic subjects. jps ( talk) 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Contrary to JP's claim, news coverage of Makukov was not of the "April Fools Variety" but very serious. Makukov's peer reviewed article was published in the highly respectedIcarus. That article stirred up coverage both in the popular magazines covering science news ( New Scientist, Discovery) and the general media ( Huffington Post), which I cited in the stub I created for this article. Please read the articles used in the article from New Scientist, Discovery, and Huffington Post, before accepting the characterization that these articles treated this as an "April Fools Joke." I'll add more references here upon request.
- This article falls well within the subject of panspermia which already has extensive coverage in Wikipedia. Panspermia is not such a fringe idea that it can or should be removed, indeed it is widely discussed.
- I am very curious that JP nominated this for deletion within hours of my creating this stub article. Setting aside my curiosity of how in the world he is managing to police wikipedia for any attempt to create an article related to Makukov or panspermia to nominate it for deletion so quickly, it seems extremely premature to nominate an article for deletion before it has had at least a few months to develop. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to encourage development of articles with input from multiple editors bringing their own resources to the article. Suggesting the abortion of a nacscent article within hours of it's creation seems a bit premature.
- The "fringe theory" argument applies to articles about theories, not people. JP should restate his objection to be around the claim that Makukov is not a notable person. Given the coverage about him in the context of his work in the press, I think he qualifies as being notable. As I mentioned, it was covered many other places as well. The theory may end up being rejected, but Makukov has had his 15 minutes of fame and is notable at least for that success.
- As noted above, Makukov's theory fits well within the non-fringe, but certainly not widely endorsed, theory of panspermia. At an appropriate time, I would have no objection to seeing this material included in the article on panspermia if editors decided the material was more suitably presented under that topic than under a stub biography of Makukov.
- Finally, I think that there should be some respect for the contributions of other editors. My contribution was sincere, well sourced, and covers a researcher whose work received wide coverage in the media. As mentioned above, in the long term, his theory may end up being rejected, but Makukov has had his 15 minutes of fame and is notable at least for that success.
- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Keeping the article has no cost. (Even if the nomination for deletion succeeds, the deleted article remains accessible on the servers.) I don't know what has motivated JP's desire to see this deleted so quickly, but I don't see how deletion advances any financial or educational purposes.
- Please let me know if you want to see a list of main stream publications which have covered this story in a serious fashion.— GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 14:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- The only plausible claim to notability is that the man made a fringe theory claim that was picked-up by some breathless tabloid science journals as a "news-of-the-weird" variety. There isn't independent expert review of his idea because it is harebrained and essentially unworthy of commentary. Publishing in Icarus does not inoculate an idea from being fringe. Wait until the idea has received independent notice. Until then, it's just another crazy proposal of the many that we see come and go. jps ( talk) 17:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately websites do not establish notability on their own. It looks some considerable time will be needed for this study (and its authors) to gain some serious attention. Because both the price tag of $35.95 and the remarks such as "Whatever the actual reason behind the decimal system in the code, it appears that it was invented outside the solar system already several billions years [sic] ago." [1] seem real obstacles. Once seeing the price tag of the paper, one might also wonder whether Godblessyou2 is Makukov or not. Logos ( talk) 18:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm not Makukov, or in any way associated with him, his colleagues, or his country. I just saw an interesting New Scientist article about his research and decided to start an article about it. As mentioned, the New Scientist article treated the subject seriously. It was not, an "April Fools" type article, but went into extensive detail about Rumer's transformations and symmetries of 37 which, I confess, I did not fully understand given my own limited knowledge of higher mathematics. The reason I'm interested is because I've always believed that we humans would be very likely to seed an experiment in bio-engineering of another planet, and are approaching the level of scientific knowledge to do so. So, that raises the question of how do we know if that hasn't already been done. It's not an unheard of theme in science fiction, and that is no doubt why Makukov's paper was widely covered in the media.–
GodBlessYou2 (
talk) 19:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- In spite of the obvious appeal to creationists and "intelligent design" religionists, these types of pseudo-academic claims about bioengineered terrestrial life are a dime-a-dozen and not worthy of article-by-article treatment. New Scientist magazine is somewhat notorious for taking fringe claims and trumpeting them. We typically do not write articles in Wikipedia solely on the sensationalism found in New Scientist. jps ( talk) 19:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm not Makukov, or in any way associated with him, his colleagues, or his country. I just saw an interesting New Scientist article about his research and decided to start an article about it. As mentioned, the New Scientist article treated the subject seriously. It was not, an "April Fools" type article, but went into extensive detail about Rumer's transformations and symmetries of 37 which, I confess, I did not fully understand given my own limited knowledge of higher mathematics. The reason I'm interested is because I've always believed that we humans would be very likely to seed an experiment in bio-engineering of another planet, and are approaching the level of scientific knowledge to do so. So, that raises the question of how do we know if that hasn't already been done. It's not an unheard of theme in science fiction, and that is no doubt why Makukov's paper was widely covered in the media.–
GodBlessYou2 (
talk) 19:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your use of the royal "we" (in "we typically do not...") presumes that you represent "we." More importantly, your claim that theories of "bioengineered terrestrial life are a dime-a-dozen" actually highlights that the theory is not so fringe if it is commonly being suggested by dozens of people. In fact, it underscores that what set this author and his work apart, and made it notable to New Scientist and others, is that it was not just another unsubstantiated speculation but is backed by extensive mathematical modeling of genetic code which was published in a highly regarded peer reviewed journal complete with all the authors' extravagent speculations. That makes this particular claimant notable, precisely because his speculation is not just a "dime-a-dozen" speculation but is extensively argued with a rigorous (even if ignorable and wrong . . . I take no position on the accuracy or truth of the paper) mathematical analysis which peer reviewers found sufficiently enough defended to be accepted for publication by Icarus. Finally, your opinion regarding New Scientist's alleged proclivity for trumpeting fringe claims is not adequate grounds for dismissing it as a reliable source per policy. It is a verifiable secondary source with fact checking. At least find some error in the article that justifies dismissing it. I realize that as a professional "astronomer and educator" you have strong feelings about protecting the public from "fringe" ideas, but authors and publications which receive notable coverage, even for theories you personally believe are totally nuts, are still supposed to be properly covered according to Wikipedia policy.–
GodBlessYou2 (
talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
-
Panspermia itself is worthy of inclusion as an article. Individual
WP:MADEUP ideas are not. There are all kinds of ideas being proposed and nothing new is under the sun. That does not justify an article in Wikipedia. It is further worth noting that publication of a single paper is not in-and-of-itself notable. I can point to many single papers that push bizarre ideas we don't discuss in Wikipedia. What makes an idea worthy of consideration for this website is when expert review happens of the idea. So far, the ideas of Makukov have not been cited by independent researchers. So, lacking a
WP:CRYSTALBALL, it is irresponsible for us to wax eloquent about his ideas before they have been noticed by the experts in the subject (not the sensationalist tabloid press). New Scientist's problems are well-documented throughout the web.
[2]. It is a shame that you were caught up in their base appeal to the lowest-common-intelligence denominator, but there you go. You should consider educating yourself on what the best sources for science stories actually are rather than frequenting the creationist pseudoscience sites you seem to pick up most of your facts from.
jps (
talk) 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your insults and personal attacks are a violation of the [[wp:civ|civility] due to other editors.— GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 05:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
-
Panspermia itself is worthy of inclusion as an article. Individual
WP:MADEUP ideas are not. There are all kinds of ideas being proposed and nothing new is under the sun. That does not justify an article in Wikipedia. It is further worth noting that publication of a single paper is not in-and-of-itself notable. I can point to many single papers that push bizarre ideas we don't discuss in Wikipedia. What makes an idea worthy of consideration for this website is when expert review happens of the idea. So far, the ideas of Makukov have not been cited by independent researchers. So, lacking a
WP:CRYSTALBALL, it is irresponsible for us to wax eloquent about his ideas before they have been noticed by the experts in the subject (not the sensationalist tabloid press). New Scientist's problems are well-documented throughout the web.
[2]. It is a shame that you were caught up in their base appeal to the lowest-common-intelligence denominator, but there you go. You should consider educating yourself on what the best sources for science stories actually are rather than frequenting the creationist pseudoscience sites you seem to pick up most of your facts from.
jps (
talk) 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your use of the royal "we" (in "we typically do not...") presumes that you represent "we." More importantly, your claim that theories of "bioengineered terrestrial life are a dime-a-dozen" actually highlights that the theory is not so fringe if it is commonly being suggested by dozens of people. In fact, it underscores that what set this author and his work apart, and made it notable to New Scientist and others, is that it was not just another unsubstantiated speculation but is backed by extensive mathematical modeling of genetic code which was published in a highly regarded peer reviewed journal complete with all the authors' extravagent speculations. That makes this particular claimant notable, precisely because his speculation is not just a "dime-a-dozen" speculation but is extensively argued with a rigorous (even if ignorable and wrong . . . I take no position on the accuracy or truth of the paper) mathematical analysis which peer reviewers found sufficiently enough defended to be accepted for publication by Icarus. Finally, your opinion regarding New Scientist's alleged proclivity for trumpeting fringe claims is not adequate grounds for dismissing it as a reliable source per policy. It is a verifiable secondary source with fact checking. At least find some error in the article that justifies dismissing it. I realize that as a professional "astronomer and educator" you have strong feelings about protecting the public from "fringe" ideas, but authors and publications which receive notable coverage, even for theories you personally believe are totally nuts, are still supposed to be properly covered according to Wikipedia policy.–
GodBlessYou2 (
talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I've searched high and low and there's been absolutely no serious academic consideration given to this paper. Which is understandable as its conclusions are absurd. Maybe if in the future this guy becomes notable in fringe circles along the lines of other absurdities like ancient astronaut stuff then he may deserve an article. Right now he doesn't even have that. Capeo ( talk) 14:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- First, the paper is relatively new, so it may take some time for academic papers to develop around this paper, either for or against it.
- Secondly, "academic consideration" is not the determining criteria. It is notable because of news coverage -- occurring both in science magazines like New Scientist and popular media, such as Huffington Post. These two publications, alone, are both reliable and notable. I'm unaware of any Wikipedia policy that requires a certain "count" of reliable sources necessary to warrant inclusion. The author's paper was published in a peer reviewed journal, was reported on in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, therefore he and his paper and hypothesis are notable. That does not mean his arguments are correct or will win widespread support, but it demonstrates that this is already notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article that, at the very least, gives interested readers an opportunity to find some of the sources discussing this person and his theory.— GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 15:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- The HuffPo article cribs almost the same wording as the other throw away weird science articles such as Discovery News or ToI. Note many use the same "who designed the designer" line. Shall we have an article about the guy who took a picture of Bigfoot that is just above the HuffPo article? All these other articles stem from the NS article which is a publication that's been criticized for being both sensationalist and too credulous in the past. All that being said, none of the above makes this guy notable at all. There's hundreds of articles published like this in mass media every year and they amount to nothing. And there's thousands of papers published every year in journals and almost none of them are notable. This man is not notable as a scientist and, unless his hypothesis gets traction in fringe circles, he's not notable as a purveyor of fringe views. Capeo ( talk) 15:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This doesn't even rise to the level of notable drivel. As others have said, he isn't even taken seriously by conspiracy theorists yet.-- Adam in MO Talk 00:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of substantial SERIOUS coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Transient mention in news-of-the-weird type journalism does little to establish notability, and besides that, there is nothing in reliable sources that we can base an article on. This is just yet another nutter in a vast sea of nutters writing nutty things about nutty topics, and there is no evidence that this nutter is widely known, never mind discussed, even by his fellow nutters. The universe would run out of electrons if WP had a article on every nutter as insignificant as this. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 01:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether or not the theory is notable, the person hasn't been shown to be. All the sources merely discuss the theory; and it's not even as if he's the main proponent of the theory, he's always one of two or three in the sources. -- GRuban ( talk) 05:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I suspect I cannot contribute to decisions on a wiki article about myself, but I would definitely prefer it to be deleted. Not because I am not a notable "nutter" (and, thankfully, I am not :-0 ), but because it has little, if any, relation to me or to my research. E.g., I have never been a proponent of panspermia. Vladimir is my colleague, not mentor, and he is not a mathematician. Also I wonder if there is really such a country as "Kazahastan", as well as how life might be distributed through the Universe by "meateors" and "comments" :-) This wiki article relies largely on opuses by mass media and pop-sci resources which heavily distorted the results. E.g., the phrase "an advanced alien civilization 'seeded' our galaxy eons ago with an ET signal that eventually found its way to Earth, implanting a genetic code into humans" is ingeniously surrealistic (and human-chauvinistic), but, unfortunately (or rather fortunately) has nothing to do with our results. The results themselves are certainly so harebrained, drivel and pseudoscientific, that a variety of peer-reviewed journals (including Icarus, Life Sciences in Space Research, Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Journal of Theoretical Biology, BioSystems) were unable to resist publishing them (see, e.g. here, here, and here). Even worse than that, conspiracy theorists still haven't taken the result seriously! (maybe, because they are smart enough to see that there is nothing conspiratorial about it?). Cheers ;-) Maxim Makukov ( talk) 07:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- You may contribute, and as the subject your view will even be given extra weight in borderline cases. Normally if the article were merely poorly written, but the subject were encyclopedic, we'd just fix the problems, rather than delete the article; this is more of a discussion of whether we should have such an article at all. But here it looks like opinions, including yours, are clearly in favor of deletion, so I'm anticipating it to be gone within 7 days. (Also I liked your comment, see your talk page.) --
GRuban (
talk) 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ideas sink or swim in the congress of scientific ideas on the basis of expert review. I wish you nothing but success, Dr. Makukov. In the meantime, it is hardly Wikipedia's place to guess one way or another as to how your ideas will or will not be incorporated into our understanding of reality. I appreciate your candid evaluation of the (frankly) distorted and crazed coverage your ideas have received in the popsci press and apologize for any headaches this may have caused. jps ( talk) 18:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- You may contribute, and as the subject your view will even be given extra weight in borderline cases. Normally if the article were merely poorly written, but the subject were encyclopedic, we'd just fix the problems, rather than delete the article; this is more of a discussion of whether we should have such an article at all. But here it looks like opinions, including yours, are clearly in favor of deletion, so I'm anticipating it to be gone within 7 days. (Also I liked your comment, see your talk page.) --
GRuban (
talk) 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, merge and redirect to Panspermia - Cwobeel (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - I detest the creeping trend of people arguing that because something is patently absurd, the rules regarding notability and reliable sourcing go out the window. New Scientist may well cover 'whacky' things, but in the sense of a biography rather than a theory, that doesn't do much to change the subject's status re: WP:GNG or any other measure of notability. It remains a reliable secondary source, and extensive coverage isn't nullified by something being unassociated with reality.
- Having said that, all the sources appear to be about the man's theories, rather than the man. Not only does that kind of make the BLP moot, but his theories certainly don't meet the criteria for fringe notability. Many others have made the same claims as he has. Alas, delete. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. None of the references have focused on him or mentioned him twice, they have only provided his view as one of the many. VandVictory ( talk) 17:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete lacks significant coverage for actual subject. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:22, 15 January 2015 (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.
- 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. Deor ( talk) 11:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Maxim Makukov
- Maxim Makukov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This WP:FRINGEBLP is being sourced primarily to sensationalist tabloid stories of a "News of the Weird" variety. This is in defiance of our WP:NFRINGE guideline which states "Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season)." Further, the subject does not satisfy the WP:PROF level we would require for academic subjects. jps ( talk) 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Contrary to JP's claim, news coverage of Makukov was not of the "April Fools Variety" but very serious. Makukov's peer reviewed article was published in the highly respectedIcarus. That article stirred up coverage both in the popular magazines covering science news ( New Scientist, Discovery) and the general media ( Huffington Post), which I cited in the stub I created for this article. Please read the articles used in the article from New Scientist, Discovery, and Huffington Post, before accepting the characterization that these articles treated this as an "April Fools Joke." I'll add more references here upon request.
- This article falls well within the subject of panspermia which already has extensive coverage in Wikipedia. Panspermia is not such a fringe idea that it can or should be removed, indeed it is widely discussed.
- I am very curious that JP nominated this for deletion within hours of my creating this stub article. Setting aside my curiosity of how in the world he is managing to police wikipedia for any attempt to create an article related to Makukov or panspermia to nominate it for deletion so quickly, it seems extremely premature to nominate an article for deletion before it has had at least a few months to develop. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to encourage development of articles with input from multiple editors bringing their own resources to the article. Suggesting the abortion of a nacscent article within hours of it's creation seems a bit premature.
- The "fringe theory" argument applies to articles about theories, not people. JP should restate his objection to be around the claim that Makukov is not a notable person. Given the coverage about him in the context of his work in the press, I think he qualifies as being notable. As I mentioned, it was covered many other places as well. The theory may end up being rejected, but Makukov has had his 15 minutes of fame and is notable at least for that success.
- As noted above, Makukov's theory fits well within the non-fringe, but certainly not widely endorsed, theory of panspermia. At an appropriate time, I would have no objection to seeing this material included in the article on panspermia if editors decided the material was more suitably presented under that topic than under a stub biography of Makukov.
- Finally, I think that there should be some respect for the contributions of other editors. My contribution was sincere, well sourced, and covers a researcher whose work received wide coverage in the media. As mentioned above, in the long term, his theory may end up being rejected, but Makukov has had his 15 minutes of fame and is notable at least for that success.
- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Keeping the article has no cost. (Even if the nomination for deletion succeeds, the deleted article remains accessible on the servers.) I don't know what has motivated JP's desire to see this deleted so quickly, but I don't see how deletion advances any financial or educational purposes.
- Please let me know if you want to see a list of main stream publications which have covered this story in a serious fashion.— GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 14:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- The only plausible claim to notability is that the man made a fringe theory claim that was picked-up by some breathless tabloid science journals as a "news-of-the-weird" variety. There isn't independent expert review of his idea because it is harebrained and essentially unworthy of commentary. Publishing in Icarus does not inoculate an idea from being fringe. Wait until the idea has received independent notice. Until then, it's just another crazy proposal of the many that we see come and go. jps ( talk) 17:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately websites do not establish notability on their own. It looks some considerable time will be needed for this study (and its authors) to gain some serious attention. Because both the price tag of $35.95 and the remarks such as "Whatever the actual reason behind the decimal system in the code, it appears that it was invented outside the solar system already several billions years [sic] ago." [1] seem real obstacles. Once seeing the price tag of the paper, one might also wonder whether Godblessyou2 is Makukov or not. Logos ( talk) 18:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm not Makukov, or in any way associated with him, his colleagues, or his country. I just saw an interesting New Scientist article about his research and decided to start an article about it. As mentioned, the New Scientist article treated the subject seriously. It was not, an "April Fools" type article, but went into extensive detail about Rumer's transformations and symmetries of 37 which, I confess, I did not fully understand given my own limited knowledge of higher mathematics. The reason I'm interested is because I've always believed that we humans would be very likely to seed an experiment in bio-engineering of another planet, and are approaching the level of scientific knowledge to do so. So, that raises the question of how do we know if that hasn't already been done. It's not an unheard of theme in science fiction, and that is no doubt why Makukov's paper was widely covered in the media.–
GodBlessYou2 (
talk) 19:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- In spite of the obvious appeal to creationists and "intelligent design" religionists, these types of pseudo-academic claims about bioengineered terrestrial life are a dime-a-dozen and not worthy of article-by-article treatment. New Scientist magazine is somewhat notorious for taking fringe claims and trumpeting them. We typically do not write articles in Wikipedia solely on the sensationalism found in New Scientist. jps ( talk) 19:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm not Makukov, or in any way associated with him, his colleagues, or his country. I just saw an interesting New Scientist article about his research and decided to start an article about it. As mentioned, the New Scientist article treated the subject seriously. It was not, an "April Fools" type article, but went into extensive detail about Rumer's transformations and symmetries of 37 which, I confess, I did not fully understand given my own limited knowledge of higher mathematics. The reason I'm interested is because I've always believed that we humans would be very likely to seed an experiment in bio-engineering of another planet, and are approaching the level of scientific knowledge to do so. So, that raises the question of how do we know if that hasn't already been done. It's not an unheard of theme in science fiction, and that is no doubt why Makukov's paper was widely covered in the media.–
GodBlessYou2 (
talk) 19:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your use of the royal "we" (in "we typically do not...") presumes that you represent "we." More importantly, your claim that theories of "bioengineered terrestrial life are a dime-a-dozen" actually highlights that the theory is not so fringe if it is commonly being suggested by dozens of people. In fact, it underscores that what set this author and his work apart, and made it notable to New Scientist and others, is that it was not just another unsubstantiated speculation but is backed by extensive mathematical modeling of genetic code which was published in a highly regarded peer reviewed journal complete with all the authors' extravagent speculations. That makes this particular claimant notable, precisely because his speculation is not just a "dime-a-dozen" speculation but is extensively argued with a rigorous (even if ignorable and wrong . . . I take no position on the accuracy or truth of the paper) mathematical analysis which peer reviewers found sufficiently enough defended to be accepted for publication by Icarus. Finally, your opinion regarding New Scientist's alleged proclivity for trumpeting fringe claims is not adequate grounds for dismissing it as a reliable source per policy. It is a verifiable secondary source with fact checking. At least find some error in the article that justifies dismissing it. I realize that as a professional "astronomer and educator" you have strong feelings about protecting the public from "fringe" ideas, but authors and publications which receive notable coverage, even for theories you personally believe are totally nuts, are still supposed to be properly covered according to Wikipedia policy.–
GodBlessYou2 (
talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
-
Panspermia itself is worthy of inclusion as an article. Individual
WP:MADEUP ideas are not. There are all kinds of ideas being proposed and nothing new is under the sun. That does not justify an article in Wikipedia. It is further worth noting that publication of a single paper is not in-and-of-itself notable. I can point to many single papers that push bizarre ideas we don't discuss in Wikipedia. What makes an idea worthy of consideration for this website is when expert review happens of the idea. So far, the ideas of Makukov have not been cited by independent researchers. So, lacking a
WP:CRYSTALBALL, it is irresponsible for us to wax eloquent about his ideas before they have been noticed by the experts in the subject (not the sensationalist tabloid press). New Scientist's problems are well-documented throughout the web.
[2]. It is a shame that you were caught up in their base appeal to the lowest-common-intelligence denominator, but there you go. You should consider educating yourself on what the best sources for science stories actually are rather than frequenting the creationist pseudoscience sites you seem to pick up most of your facts from.
jps (
talk) 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your insults and personal attacks are a violation of the [[wp:civ|civility] due to other editors.— GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 05:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
-
Panspermia itself is worthy of inclusion as an article. Individual
WP:MADEUP ideas are not. There are all kinds of ideas being proposed and nothing new is under the sun. That does not justify an article in Wikipedia. It is further worth noting that publication of a single paper is not in-and-of-itself notable. I can point to many single papers that push bizarre ideas we don't discuss in Wikipedia. What makes an idea worthy of consideration for this website is when expert review happens of the idea. So far, the ideas of Makukov have not been cited by independent researchers. So, lacking a
WP:CRYSTALBALL, it is irresponsible for us to wax eloquent about his ideas before they have been noticed by the experts in the subject (not the sensationalist tabloid press). New Scientist's problems are well-documented throughout the web.
[2]. It is a shame that you were caught up in their base appeal to the lowest-common-intelligence denominator, but there you go. You should consider educating yourself on what the best sources for science stories actually are rather than frequenting the creationist pseudoscience sites you seem to pick up most of your facts from.
jps (
talk) 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your use of the royal "we" (in "we typically do not...") presumes that you represent "we." More importantly, your claim that theories of "bioengineered terrestrial life are a dime-a-dozen" actually highlights that the theory is not so fringe if it is commonly being suggested by dozens of people. In fact, it underscores that what set this author and his work apart, and made it notable to New Scientist and others, is that it was not just another unsubstantiated speculation but is backed by extensive mathematical modeling of genetic code which was published in a highly regarded peer reviewed journal complete with all the authors' extravagent speculations. That makes this particular claimant notable, precisely because his speculation is not just a "dime-a-dozen" speculation but is extensively argued with a rigorous (even if ignorable and wrong . . . I take no position on the accuracy or truth of the paper) mathematical analysis which peer reviewers found sufficiently enough defended to be accepted for publication by Icarus. Finally, your opinion regarding New Scientist's alleged proclivity for trumpeting fringe claims is not adequate grounds for dismissing it as a reliable source per policy. It is a verifiable secondary source with fact checking. At least find some error in the article that justifies dismissing it. I realize that as a professional "astronomer and educator" you have strong feelings about protecting the public from "fringe" ideas, but authors and publications which receive notable coverage, even for theories you personally believe are totally nuts, are still supposed to be properly covered according to Wikipedia policy.–
GodBlessYou2 (
talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I've searched high and low and there's been absolutely no serious academic consideration given to this paper. Which is understandable as its conclusions are absurd. Maybe if in the future this guy becomes notable in fringe circles along the lines of other absurdities like ancient astronaut stuff then he may deserve an article. Right now he doesn't even have that. Capeo ( talk) 14:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- First, the paper is relatively new, so it may take some time for academic papers to develop around this paper, either for or against it.
- Secondly, "academic consideration" is not the determining criteria. It is notable because of news coverage -- occurring both in science magazines like New Scientist and popular media, such as Huffington Post. These two publications, alone, are both reliable and notable. I'm unaware of any Wikipedia policy that requires a certain "count" of reliable sources necessary to warrant inclusion. The author's paper was published in a peer reviewed journal, was reported on in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, therefore he and his paper and hypothesis are notable. That does not mean his arguments are correct or will win widespread support, but it demonstrates that this is already notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article that, at the very least, gives interested readers an opportunity to find some of the sources discussing this person and his theory.— GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 15:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- The HuffPo article cribs almost the same wording as the other throw away weird science articles such as Discovery News or ToI. Note many use the same "who designed the designer" line. Shall we have an article about the guy who took a picture of Bigfoot that is just above the HuffPo article? All these other articles stem from the NS article which is a publication that's been criticized for being both sensationalist and too credulous in the past. All that being said, none of the above makes this guy notable at all. There's hundreds of articles published like this in mass media every year and they amount to nothing. And there's thousands of papers published every year in journals and almost none of them are notable. This man is not notable as a scientist and, unless his hypothesis gets traction in fringe circles, he's not notable as a purveyor of fringe views. Capeo ( talk) 15:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This doesn't even rise to the level of notable drivel. As others have said, he isn't even taken seriously by conspiracy theorists yet.-- Adam in MO Talk 00:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of substantial SERIOUS coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Transient mention in news-of-the-weird type journalism does little to establish notability, and besides that, there is nothing in reliable sources that we can base an article on. This is just yet another nutter in a vast sea of nutters writing nutty things about nutty topics, and there is no evidence that this nutter is widely known, never mind discussed, even by his fellow nutters. The universe would run out of electrons if WP had a article on every nutter as insignificant as this. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 01:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether or not the theory is notable, the person hasn't been shown to be. All the sources merely discuss the theory; and it's not even as if he's the main proponent of the theory, he's always one of two or three in the sources. -- GRuban ( talk) 05:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I suspect I cannot contribute to decisions on a wiki article about myself, but I would definitely prefer it to be deleted. Not because I am not a notable "nutter" (and, thankfully, I am not :-0 ), but because it has little, if any, relation to me or to my research. E.g., I have never been a proponent of panspermia. Vladimir is my colleague, not mentor, and he is not a mathematician. Also I wonder if there is really such a country as "Kazahastan", as well as how life might be distributed through the Universe by "meateors" and "comments" :-) This wiki article relies largely on opuses by mass media and pop-sci resources which heavily distorted the results. E.g., the phrase "an advanced alien civilization 'seeded' our galaxy eons ago with an ET signal that eventually found its way to Earth, implanting a genetic code into humans" is ingeniously surrealistic (and human-chauvinistic), but, unfortunately (or rather fortunately) has nothing to do with our results. The results themselves are certainly so harebrained, drivel and pseudoscientific, that a variety of peer-reviewed journals (including Icarus, Life Sciences in Space Research, Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Journal of Theoretical Biology, BioSystems) were unable to resist publishing them (see, e.g. here, here, and here). Even worse than that, conspiracy theorists still haven't taken the result seriously! (maybe, because they are smart enough to see that there is nothing conspiratorial about it?). Cheers ;-) Maxim Makukov ( talk) 07:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- You may contribute, and as the subject your view will even be given extra weight in borderline cases. Normally if the article were merely poorly written, but the subject were encyclopedic, we'd just fix the problems, rather than delete the article; this is more of a discussion of whether we should have such an article at all. But here it looks like opinions, including yours, are clearly in favor of deletion, so I'm anticipating it to be gone within 7 days. (Also I liked your comment, see your talk page.) --
GRuban (
talk) 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ideas sink or swim in the congress of scientific ideas on the basis of expert review. I wish you nothing but success, Dr. Makukov. In the meantime, it is hardly Wikipedia's place to guess one way or another as to how your ideas will or will not be incorporated into our understanding of reality. I appreciate your candid evaluation of the (frankly) distorted and crazed coverage your ideas have received in the popsci press and apologize for any headaches this may have caused. jps ( talk) 18:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- You may contribute, and as the subject your view will even be given extra weight in borderline cases. Normally if the article were merely poorly written, but the subject were encyclopedic, we'd just fix the problems, rather than delete the article; this is more of a discussion of whether we should have such an article at all. But here it looks like opinions, including yours, are clearly in favor of deletion, so I'm anticipating it to be gone within 7 days. (Also I liked your comment, see your talk page.) --
GRuban (
talk) 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, merge and redirect to Panspermia - Cwobeel (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - I detest the creeping trend of people arguing that because something is patently absurd, the rules regarding notability and reliable sourcing go out the window. New Scientist may well cover 'whacky' things, but in the sense of a biography rather than a theory, that doesn't do much to change the subject's status re: WP:GNG or any other measure of notability. It remains a reliable secondary source, and extensive coverage isn't nullified by something being unassociated with reality.
- Having said that, all the sources appear to be about the man's theories, rather than the man. Not only does that kind of make the BLP moot, but his theories certainly don't meet the criteria for fringe notability. Many others have made the same claims as he has. Alas, delete. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. None of the references have focused on him or mentioned him twice, they have only provided his view as one of the many. VandVictory ( talk) 17:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete lacks significant coverage for actual subject. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:22, 15 January 2015 (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.