63:: This article should be deleted according to the "no original research" policy. Please read the article and check the links in it before voting. The recuring defense to keeping it is the large number of sources, but if you read the sources they don't talk about this. For example the NASA link talks about electricity in our atmosphere causing light effects and such, and not about this. Also several facts in the article are obviously wrong, like the fact that craters are caused by lightning bolts instead of meteors, which has direct evidence against.
133:
I'm not a believer in the
Electric Universe theory, but I suggest that this article remain. I don't mind an having an unreviewed scientific theory present as long as the issue is known on a global scale (The number of Google hits and the number of editors on this article suggest it is) and it is said
165:
not mainstream science and is widely dismissed and riduculed as lacking merit by most every mainstream physicist, I'm fine with it being here. I do think, however, that the article has gotten badly out of control, and that someone needs to wrestle it back into having some semblance of objectivity. —
164:
I agree with
Solarusdude. In my opinion, the whole Electric Universe thing is crackpot psuedoscience that's been picked up by the oddball fringe, but it does have a significant group of followers (for whatever reason) who are good at making noise. As long as the article clearly states that this is
151:
Many of the references appear to be wrongly appropriated. Others are unscientific. So the question seems to me to be whether this is a notable social phenomenon (as it's not a scientific theory). I don't think it is but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
27:
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for
Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
237:: It doesn't explain what the electric universe theory is supposed to be about. Electricity is not a new discovery and electrical charge is considered in many theories. The article doesn't identify what's supposed to be missing in the mainstream theories.
381:, but we probably want to keep it. If you believe this phenomenon to be non-notable or non-encyclopedic, state your case, but saying X isn't nearly as well-known as very-famous Y or Z doesn't really shed any light on the issue, does it?
77:" The Electric Universe concept covers many areas, including the idea that electricity plays a much greater role in the universe than generally accpeted. In this respect, the theory is consistent with many existing and accepted theories.
134:
in the article that the theory is unsupported by the scientific community. My reasoning behind this is the article can still have a historic value even if it no longer has a scientific one. It also appears from the
309:. The Electric Universe stuff is likely pseudoscientific BS, but this article seems at least equally devoted to presenting the critiques and failure of the theory, not cheerleading for the junk science. As with
253:. Other than that, it is very clear to me that this is a very real pseudoscience, and the right course of action is to remove any portions of the article that are OR or unsourced.
225:." Lack of consensus in a previous VfD does not establish a precedent to keep. Saying it "survived the vote" is a stretch not equivalent to "achieved consensus to keep".
84:" The article does not present this idea as a fact, but as a theory; I am not aware of any evidence that proves that craters can not be created my electical discharges. --
390:
That's what I said. We can't include each and every crackpottery on Earth. From what I see, this particular one is very minor, non-notable in the extreme.
499:
399:
For what it's worth, I had seen mention of this crackpottery before I ever saw the
Knowledge (XXG) article. I'm pretty sure it was from
138:
that deletion was discussed before and a consensus was not reached. I hope we are not simply debating the same points we did before. -
17:
517:
333:
be keeping, providing it gives a clear picture of the particular concept, it does not matter two hoots about it being a notable
475:
459:
443:
419:
406:
394:
385:
364:
343:
321:
297:
285:
281:. Yes, it's a total crock, but it's a common one. We should have an article explaining what it is and why it's wrong. --
273:
257:
241:
229:
216:
202:
187:
156:
142:
120:
107:
88:
67:
41:
212:"Electric Universe (theory)" - I have heard of it, and don't agree with it, but think it is worthy enough to retain. --
135:
180:
54:
516:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
98:
47:
112:
Indeed. Elfguy said that several facts "are obviously wrong" without any substantiation. And many statements
495:
487:
491:
451:, this is an extremely relevant and detailed article, if you get rid of this you might as well put up
468:
452:
440:
472:
403:
382:
341:
254:
200:
105:
435:, it's not original research. Whether or not the theory is correct is not grounds for deletion.
294:
353:
139:
179:
gone through the Votes for deletion process, where originality was discussed. See previous
250:
238:
213:
184:
117:
85:
436:
400:
153:
456:
338:
197:
102:
416:
391:
361:
166:
282:
64:
36:
483:, 28 September 2005 - If I wanted a majority point of view I would watch TV.
378:
357:
310:
306:
270:
226:
75:
The recuring defense but if you read the sources they don't talk about this
293:. This kind of BS should not be part of any self-respecting enyclopedia.
116:
be falsified by an "ugly fact", but without either, it is just opinion. --
318:
337:
thingamabob. Has it made enough impact on our culture? I would say yes.
97:
be, and saying "there's no evidence to disprove it" brings you into
175:: As the main author of this article, I should mention that it has
510:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
374:
221:
From the 20 July closing: "The result of the debate was
520:). No further edits should be made to this page.
82:several facts in the article are obviously wrong
313:, it is possible to cover junk science without
265:. Non-notable crackpottery. The article is
8:
467:, just came here via a reference from the
471:article so it's not something brand new.
411:OK, I'm convinced to retract the vote.
329:this is exactly the type of article we
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
183:. The article survived the vote. --
24:
476:01:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
460:14:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
444:18:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
420:00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
407:22:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
395:11:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
386:04:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
365:01:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
344:20:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
322:06:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
298:02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
286:01:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
274:23:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
258:23:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
242:21:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
230:20:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
217:20:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
203:20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
188:20:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
157:19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
143:19:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
121:21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
108:20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
89:20:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
68:18:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
42:00:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
31:The result of the debate was
537:
502:) 20:19, 28 September 2005
377:isn't nearly as famous as
352:Not nearly as infamous as
48:Electric Universe concept
513:Please do not modify it.
269:too long, even if kept.
99:Flying Spaghetti Monster
93:Elfguy didn't say they
455:up for the scrap too.
401:this Wired News story.
469:Immanuel Velikovsky
453:Hollow Earth theory
53:See also: Previous
518:undeletion request
317:junk science. --
181:Votes for deletion
55:Votes for deletion
504:
490:comment added by
305:, analogously to
40:
528:
515:
503:
484:
354:Creation science
39:
536:
535:
531:
530:
529:
527:
526:
525:
524:
511:
485:
58:
51:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
534:
532:
523:
522:
506:
505:
478:
462:
446:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
346:
324:
300:
288:
276:
260:
244:
232:
219:
206:
205:
170:
169:
159:
128:
127:
126:
125:
124:
123:
78:
52:
50:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
533:
521:
519:
514:
508:
507:
501:
497:
493:
492:196.36.80.163
489:
482:
479:
477:
474:
470:
466:
463:
461:
458:
454:
450:
447:
445:
442:
438:
434:
431:
421:
418:
414:
410:
409:
408:
405:
404:Bunchofgrapes
402:
398:
397:
396:
393:
389:
388:
387:
384:
383:Bunchofgrapes
380:
376:
372:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
345:
342:
340:
336:
332:
328:
325:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
299:
296:
292:
289:
287:
284:
280:
277:
275:
272:
268:
264:
261:
259:
256:
255:Bunchofgrapes
252:
248:
245:
243:
240:
236:
233:
231:
228:
224:
220:
218:
215:
211:
208:
207:
204:
201:
199:
196:, per nom. —
195:
192:
191:
190:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
168:
163:
160:
158:
155:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
141:
137:
132:
122:
119:
115:
111:
110:
109:
106:
104:
101:territory. —
100:
96:
92:
91:
90:
87:
83:
79:
76:
72:
71:
70:
69:
66:
62:
56:
49:
46:
44:
43:
38:
34:
29:
19:
512:
509:
486:— Preceding
480:
464:
448:
432:
412:
370:
349:
348:
335:unscientific
334:
330:
326:
314:
302:
295:Shadow demon
290:
278:
266:
262:
246:
234:
223:no consensus
222:
209:
193:
176:
172:
171:
167:Cory Maylett
161:
148:
130:
129:
113:
94:
81:
74:
60:
59:
33:NO CONSENSUS
32:
30:
26:
437:··gracefool
140:Solarusdude
379:California
358:Flat earth
311:Flat earth
307:Flat earth
251:MacRusgail
239:Peter Grey
214:MacRusgail
185:Iantresman
118:Iantresman
86:Iantresman
154:Dlyons493
136:talk page
500:contribs
488:unsigned
457:Piecraft
198:ceejayoz
103:ceejayoz
95:couldn't
417:Pilatus
392:Pilatus
371:Comment
362:Pilatus
356:or the
177:already
415:this.
373:: And
350:Delete
331:should
291:Delete
283:Apyule
263:Delete
247:Rename
235:Delete
210:Rename
194:Delete
149:Delete
65:Elfguy
61:Delete
37:Splash
473:Bryan
315:being
271:Quale
227:Barno
162:Keep:
131:Keep:
16:<
496:talk
481:Keep
465:Keep
449:Keep
433:Keep
413:Keep
375:Iowa
327:Keep
303:Keep
279:Keep
249:per
173:Keep
339:Alf
319:MCB
267:way
114:may
35:. -
498:•
360:.
494:(
441:☺
439:|
80:"
73:"
57:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.