- 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. postdlf ( talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Shape Effects Phenomenon
- Shape Effects Phenomenon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails our WP:NFRINGE guideline. No independent sources are available attesting to this as a PHENOMENON. Clearly this is serving as a coatrack for pyramid power promoters. jps ( talk) 14:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I am seeing hits for "Shape Effect" and "Shape Effects" in Google Scholar but I don't think they refer to the same thing, although I can't say for sure as I don't understand what the subject actually is: [1] [2]. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Article about a single non-notable paper whose actual science bits can be distilled into "different shapes have different absorption characteristics", which is... not exactly a great revelation. The rest is, as pointed out, WP:FRINGEy pyramid power woo. Kolbasz ( talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do not Delete I think the reasons that you are using to suggest deletion of the page is missing the scientific integrity. Any experienced user or student can simply replicate the electromagnetic simulation— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimyen2014 ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- — Note to closing admin: Jimyen2014 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz ( talk) 19:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete in the absence of something different and less original to refer to. Also, has a definitely pyramidal look to it (as opposed to pear-shaped...), although they have avoided quantum and crystals so far. Peridon ( talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not DeleteWhat do you mean is quantum and crystals? What you are saying is not logical form the scientific point of view. I think the reasons that you are using to suggest deletion of the page is missing the scientific integrity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimyen2014 ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)- Many of the fringe ideas attached to science but not completely in it seem to involve crystals or talking about 'quantum' effects that are totally impossible - and also scientifically illogical. For examples, see the Feedback page every week in the New Scientist magazine. What you must do is to show that there is discussion of this phenomenon other than in the work of the people cited. We need to know that this has been noticed and reviewed by people other than those writing the papers containing it. BTW I've struck through your do not delete just above because you are only allowed one Keep (or Do Not Delete), or Delete. Everything else must either be just stuck on like this post, or be labelled Comment. The reviewing admin (not me) will assess the arguments rather than the number of !votes when deciding the result of this discussion. Peridon ( talk) 20:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – I'm not qualified to comment on the science, but the one journal paper seems to be the one in "Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications". It gets zero cites on Google Scholar, and the publisher ([www.scirp.org/journal/jemaa/ predatory publisher Scientific Research Publishing]) is on Beall’s List of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". This doesn't inspire confidence. – Margin1522 ( talk) 21:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per Margin1522's reasoning: the publication venue is fishy and there's no sign of anyone else in science taking the research seriously. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Sources not reliable enough to establish notability. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 00:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Skimming the first page of the journal article suggests there's a very good reason it was published in such a marginal venue. The rest is straight-up WP:FRINGE. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 03:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do not Delete. Although, the first reference (journal article) looks like an extension of a conference article. I think from my technical point of view this discovery will cause a revolution in the packaging industry. I think all those who are suggesting removing the article are not specialized in the bio-electromagnetic field of science. They are only following Wikipedia rules. The EM simulation is verifiable. Asiawest ( talk) 15:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)— Asiawest ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, this is Wikipedia, so we follow the rules here. They call for notability and reliable independent references WP:RS to prove it. In academic and scientific circles, referencing to primary papers is the way to do it. Here, we insist on outside notability - proof that a paper is being reviewed and discussed - and we don't publish original research WP:OR or have articles about things that are not reasonably widely reviewed. We do have articles about Homeopathic medicine and Astrology - both areas that I personally consider as being idiotic, but which are very widely reviewed and discussed, and therefore we should have neutrally worded articles on them. A deletion here doesn't mean 'gone for ever'. It means that when the notability requirement can be met, an article can be created then. But we don't have articles in advance of the notability being shown. Peridon ( talk) 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:Fringe PianoDan ( talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment To any new editors visiting this discussion: The final decision about the article will be made by an admin who is not involved, and it will be based on the arguments made with attention in particular to the rules of Wikipedia. Posts by editors with no other edits tend to be given less weight than those by more experienced editors who refer to the policies. The decision is not made by counting votes. Peridon ( talk) 17:43, 17 February 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. postdlf ( talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Shape Effects Phenomenon
- Shape Effects Phenomenon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails our WP:NFRINGE guideline. No independent sources are available attesting to this as a PHENOMENON. Clearly this is serving as a coatrack for pyramid power promoters. jps ( talk) 14:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I am seeing hits for "Shape Effect" and "Shape Effects" in Google Scholar but I don't think they refer to the same thing, although I can't say for sure as I don't understand what the subject actually is: [1] [2]. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Article about a single non-notable paper whose actual science bits can be distilled into "different shapes have different absorption characteristics", which is... not exactly a great revelation. The rest is, as pointed out, WP:FRINGEy pyramid power woo. Kolbasz ( talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do not Delete I think the reasons that you are using to suggest deletion of the page is missing the scientific integrity. Any experienced user or student can simply replicate the electromagnetic simulation— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimyen2014 ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- — Note to closing admin: Jimyen2014 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz ( talk) 19:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete in the absence of something different and less original to refer to. Also, has a definitely pyramidal look to it (as opposed to pear-shaped...), although they have avoided quantum and crystals so far. Peridon ( talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not DeleteWhat do you mean is quantum and crystals? What you are saying is not logical form the scientific point of view. I think the reasons that you are using to suggest deletion of the page is missing the scientific integrity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimyen2014 ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)- Many of the fringe ideas attached to science but not completely in it seem to involve crystals or talking about 'quantum' effects that are totally impossible - and also scientifically illogical. For examples, see the Feedback page every week in the New Scientist magazine. What you must do is to show that there is discussion of this phenomenon other than in the work of the people cited. We need to know that this has been noticed and reviewed by people other than those writing the papers containing it. BTW I've struck through your do not delete just above because you are only allowed one Keep (or Do Not Delete), or Delete. Everything else must either be just stuck on like this post, or be labelled Comment. The reviewing admin (not me) will assess the arguments rather than the number of !votes when deciding the result of this discussion. Peridon ( talk) 20:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – I'm not qualified to comment on the science, but the one journal paper seems to be the one in "Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications". It gets zero cites on Google Scholar, and the publisher ([www.scirp.org/journal/jemaa/ predatory publisher Scientific Research Publishing]) is on Beall’s List of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". This doesn't inspire confidence. – Margin1522 ( talk) 21:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per Margin1522's reasoning: the publication venue is fishy and there's no sign of anyone else in science taking the research seriously. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Sources not reliable enough to establish notability. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 00:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Skimming the first page of the journal article suggests there's a very good reason it was published in such a marginal venue. The rest is straight-up WP:FRINGE. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 03:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do not Delete. Although, the first reference (journal article) looks like an extension of a conference article. I think from my technical point of view this discovery will cause a revolution in the packaging industry. I think all those who are suggesting removing the article are not specialized in the bio-electromagnetic field of science. They are only following Wikipedia rules. The EM simulation is verifiable. Asiawest ( talk) 15:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)— Asiawest ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, this is Wikipedia, so we follow the rules here. They call for notability and reliable independent references WP:RS to prove it. In academic and scientific circles, referencing to primary papers is the way to do it. Here, we insist on outside notability - proof that a paper is being reviewed and discussed - and we don't publish original research WP:OR or have articles about things that are not reasonably widely reviewed. We do have articles about Homeopathic medicine and Astrology - both areas that I personally consider as being idiotic, but which are very widely reviewed and discussed, and therefore we should have neutrally worded articles on them. A deletion here doesn't mean 'gone for ever'. It means that when the notability requirement can be met, an article can be created then. But we don't have articles in advance of the notability being shown. Peridon ( talk) 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:Fringe PianoDan ( talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment To any new editors visiting this discussion: The final decision about the article will be made by an admin who is not involved, and it will be based on the arguments made with attention in particular to the rules of Wikipedia. Posts by editors with no other edits tend to be given less weight than those by more experienced editors who refer to the policies. The decision is not made by counting votes. Peridon ( talk) 17:43, 17 February 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.