1064:. The article is overbalanced by the discussion about deep impact, which may have been an interesting potential test case, but arguably an inconclusive one, as the concept/theory is so inspecific as to be able to explain away almost anything. The discussions of other elements of physics amounts to an assertion that the conventional theories are right--it is necessary to at least cite a demonstration of this, but--as noted above--few qualified people have taken this seriously enough to explain the errors. Though not a physicist, I have enough knowledge of science to interpret the material presented as demonstrating the theory (or concept) to be utter nonsense, and I think anyone with a college physics course would judge the same. Personally, I am not in the least amused by pseudoscience, and have an definite prejudice against it, as I consider the public knowledge of genuine science tenuous enough without introducing additional confusion. But I think assertions that it is non-notable a little absurd after the "Wired" article. I think assertions of verifiability equally absurd: the question is nt to demonstrate that the theory is right, but to demonstrate what the theory is, and the sources do that in a very full manner. it can't be OR either, as the theory is based upon whim entirely, with no research of any sort being evident. We do not refute nonsense by hiding it--we refute nonsense by exposing it. Exposing it means first displaying, and then discussing.
470:. In my experience, such an article can only be created when the supporters of the concept are either banned for some reason, or banned by the ArbCom from editing articles on the topic. Even then, a fundamental problem with writing that sort of article is that while the pseudoscientists write copious amounts, there generally are not enough people who care about the topic to write proper debunkings, and most reliable sources don't consider the subject pseudoscience in a verifiable manner, since they either don't care or have never heard of the topic. This seems to be the case here: there simply is not a large enough corpus of critical material to create an article that treats the subject from a popular culture point of view. I think this criteria might be a good measurement of whether an pseudotheory is notable from a popular culture perspective: if a pseudotheory is notable enough in the media, it must have reached enough people who care enough to write debunkings. --
484:
I'm troubled by the idea that someone might hear about the "theory" and then search for it, and only find these other sites, with
Knowledge (XXG) silent on the issue. If we allow articles on Knowledge (XXG) about malware (destructive software programs) with warnings about them, isn't it helpful to have articles about pseudoscience (with appropriate warnings) so that people can quickly learn that that these are merely the ideas of a few vocal people on the fringe? I'd be willing to switch over to Delete if I can be persuaded that there truly is no interest in the media for debunking and/or commenting on this subject, but I am concerned about removing it purely on the basis that it is an incorrect/implausible/pseudoscientific theory when it could simply be described as such.
1176:- I found this article to be interesting and informative, and it does explain these peoples theories accurately. The purpose of this article is to explain the theory, and their ideas to provide a record of them. We really must not allow our personal views about the theory and whether or not we think it is correct to lead us to censor this information. I see many people here who clearly have a disagreement with the theory and want to kill this article because it does not comply with their own personal opinions. It seems, we have little room here for differing viewpoints, and if something doesnt comply exactly with what some people want, they want to delete it, censor it. I say, keep the article here, and let the reader decide.
433:... I think the article probably needs to be marked as potential pseudoscience, and described as unsupported by the general scientific community--but if a theory, even a hopelessly flawed and controversial one has received some press attention, then I think it needs to stay. Wired is a fairly notable source to have written about it. Therefore other people might come to Knowledge (XXG) trying to learn more about it, and they should probably learn that it is considered pseudoscience by most reliable sources.
221:. There is only one single piece of press that this idea ever received, and this piece of press is neither a notable nor a directly relevant example. The press was a single, non-notable article in Wired Magazine about an exchange on internet message boards between proponents of this idea and amateur space enthusiasts, obviously reporting of this sort violates Knowledge (XXG)'s
450:, and the question of how much press coverage is sufficient to make a theory notable. To me, a single mention -- in the context of "internet kook" news -- in Wired is insufficient really to make something notable, and the current criteria of "ongoing coverage" seems much more reasonable. In any case, do join the discussion over at that linked page on proposed criteria.
963:: "It is or was well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction." and/or "It is or was believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities." since there are far too many (20,000) Google hits for
978:
Overall, I think people who want to keep
Knowledge (XXG)'s science pages pure and completely uncluttered by even brief mention of challenging perspectives, including annoying lunacy, are swimming against the tide. The Internet is full of *stuff*. Human beliefs are messy. The best way to cope with
820:
Even if it is considered fring science, someone interested in investigating it more thoroughly may come here as a means of verifying its legitimacy. Calls to delete are merely the bitter efforts of jealous sectarians who are lame apologists for conventional thinking at the expense of any thoughtful
942:
I think the
Electric Universe concept and websites are real stinkers, but that doesn't mean it is best to have no WP article about them. Capital punishment is final has not ongoing educational value. Better to hold the troublemaker in stocks in a corner of the village square so everyone can get a
515:
For now I'm going to go with "delete without prejudice"; the subject isn't sufficiently interesting to me to work on a rewrite at this time, but I would not be against someone else creating an article that gave a critical treatment of it as an example of fringe-science in the future. It would also
483:
and New
Scientist seemed to think the issue was controversial enough to accept for publication some sort of "Open letter" on the subject. If you search on "Electric Universe" via google right now, the first link you get is the holoscience.com pseudoscience site; Knowledge (XXG) is third in line.
1218:
would apply to your argument (i.e., I can't theorize about a
Quazaloo bird that has the legs of a man and plays soccer and then quote my own research on the bird to generate an article here to record my theory). While this article is a bit more substantial than my given example, it still does not
687:
per nom. Re
Tarinth's point: this was my position in the debate two years ago, and I and some other editors did thoroughly shrink and rewrite the article to reflect the cultural interest aspect. However, as pointed out by Philosophus above, it is very difficult to maintain such an article in the
501:
from a popular culture perspective. The new article could be significantly shorter, so it shouldn't be so hard to do. There have been AfDs in the past which have gone from 95% of users being for deletion to being kept after such a rewrite. If you can rewrite the article to assert notability in the
948:
I suggest starting the article with the mainstream position: This theory is not regarded as having any scientific validity etc. etc. Then let the proponents have their say, briefly describing how their theory differs from others, and linking to their site. Its not reasonable to expect WP to give
984:
Good science isn't going to be harmed by clearly labelled links to sites which are radically at odds with mainstream thinking. I think narrow thinking and being caught in blinding paradigms are far greater problems for science. The delete, ban and ignore approach can entrench faulty paradigms,
967:
for the concept to be regarded as not accepted or discussed by a significant number of people. (Unless it could be shown that most of this was generated by the concept's proponents.) Maybe it is a work of fiction, presented as scientific fact, with the intention of selling books, or gaining
1015:
proponents. Likewise, Kronos is not an established, peer-reviwed, scientific journal as either
Knowledge (XXG) or the physics community understands such ideas. Per the ArbCom ruling on Pseudoscience, neither such source is appropriate documentation for a science article. This topic
1060:.I do not agree with some of the comments above , though they are made by people with whom I usually do agree. I do not find the article in its existing form the least sympathetic to the theory; the lead paragraph in particular is written with a POV which I can best characterise as
999:. I know this topic is contentious, and that it has been the focal point of two ArbCom cases. I know that is going to make for an unpleasant task for the closing admin. But I simply cannot see any way that this article, and through it, this topic, meets inclusion standards.
542:
article, until peer reviewed research is published which supports this as an actual theory of its own, or at least until it achieves outside notability. I would support a redirect to Plasma cosmology for the term, and a section could be devoted there to the concept. --
979:
contrary voices is to let them say a few words and give a link to their website - or link to a website where they are saying all they like. Pretending the voices don't exist, or that they WP is lofty enough to refuse to mention them at all, seems silly to me.
157:
who currently publish ideas of the "electric universe" and both of those people (Scott and
Thornhill) publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. Despite being ostensibly "scientific" the concept has received no peer review. This makes their ideas
142:
Any information contained in the article that is relevant to uncontroversial science (e.g. descriptions of plasma, z-pinches, or electric discharge) is already present at the relevant articles. Here are the reasons for deletion of the rest of the content:
119:, and no consensus was reached. The community has given enough time for supporters of keeping the article to make their additions and referencing to keep the article, but it is now more clear than ever that this article should be deleted on grounds of
804:. Possibly, some day, someone musters the energy to report on this marginally notable piece of fringe science, but this time based on verifiable and reliable sources. We should not leave this unverifiable piece of junk hanging around until then. --
1077:
I really think we need a higher bar than a single Wired article for notability. The question here is not whether the article is NPOV -- it may indeed be -- and shows the subject in the right light. The question is whether it is notable.
571:
This is just another attempt of
ScienceApologist to eradicate views that he personally disagrees with. I would agree with Kesh's suggestion of a merge with Plasma Cosmology, however ScienceApologist is also attempting to remove the
169:
amalgamations of various citations gleaned from mainstream sources in attempt to pass a veneer of respectability for the subject. This original research amalgamation includes using as "sources" papers written by Nobel laureate
724:; some of the science editors around (with an academic career to protect and a dogmatic view to hold in spite of all the evidences, like the fanatic bishop in the middle ages) seem to forget what an encyclopedia is and the
1011:(that they "should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used as sources about themselves and their activities, and even then should be used with caution") should apply to the dedicated websites of
1159:- Clearly in conflict with well established physical concepts and experimental data. Only a candidate for inclusion as a well-known, but not accepted "theory." But as documented well in nom, it is not notable enough.
631:. There are no appropriate sources for a scientific article per the interpretation of the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, and there hasn't been enough media coverage to be considered a popular culture article like
502:
media, include proper criticism, exclude long passages purporting to be science, and cover the history and popularity of the pseudotheory, I believe you will find that most users here will change their votes. --
205:
idea like this to be included in
Knowledge (XXG) it has to have some recognition from the mainstream whether it be internet memes, the media, the scientific community, etc. In fact, there has been absolutely no
258:
185:
that this subject has been subject to peer review research. In fact, every IEEE transaction paper the contributor listed to show evidence of "notability" is not about "electric universe" but rather about
1231:. There are many scientifically unverified hypotheses and proposals in Knowledge (XXG), but in each case, they are able to satisfy the tenets of WP...and if they can't, they'll end up here eventually.
1052:
1143:- per nom. I agree with most of the thoughts in the nomination and while pseudoscience can be reported as such for encyclopedic purposes, this article does nothing of the sort and instead fails
113:
1024:
is insufficient to meet the standard of multiple, independent, non-trivial references. On the other hand, the arguments to keep this article seem to fall back on a professional version of
116:
1003:, it does not approach the standards bar. The two sources overwhelmingly cited in its defense are thunderbolts.info and the journal Kronos. The website is not a reliable source as
635:. Even the article admits that the concept is absent for peer-reviewed scientific literature, which precludes a scientific portrayal of the topic, again per the ArbCom decision. --
738:
is to be seen as a real concept, most of these people must have been in dark side of the church - the middle ages Inquisition - in their prior lives... yet there is now at hand a
403:. Even if there is an IEEE Transactions article on this "concept" it seems hardly sufficient to establish notability. Meanwhile, as hoax or kook practice it doesn't rise anywhere
240:: "As it is, the article has an alarming tendency to grow into a mat of poorly-connected references into holoscience.com and thunderbolts.info, and normal editing is impossible."
1036:. The first is no more a reason for inclusion for science (or topics which would like to be thought of as science) than it is for any other subject; the latter is a
949:
more space than that to a concept which is extremely non-conventional and lacking scientific notability. But that doesn't mean all mention of it should be expunged.
688:
face of a small but prolific community of advocates, and the article has once again veered away from the "cultural impact" orientation to become an advocacy page.
83:
78:
954:
Keeping a brief article with a non-conventional warning at the top is helpful for anyone consulting WP to find out something reasonably reliable about the concept.
1123:
It is possible to imagine a decent or even a quite good article on this topic. However, the leap of imagination required is much like that needed to visualize a
87:
70:
824:
1040:
because standards for inclusion are not censorship. At the end of it all, I can reach no other conclusion but to regard the single paragraph in
1131:
whose real part is not one-half. Such an article might not violate fundamental laws of nature and logic, but I do not expect to encounter it.
704:. In the absence of genuine science, it would difficult to maintain a Knowledge (XXG) article on this topic against the constant onslaught of
139:
stated: "EU seems to be notable primarily in the minds of the advocates, and scientifically it is less notable than the sum of its parts."
178:
press releases. However, neither of these sources was/is aware let alone actually supported/supports the ideas of Thornhill and Scott.
17:
447:
877:
836:
1265:
1235:
1205:
1180:
1163:
1151:
1135:
1115:
1103:
1089:
1070:
989:
932:
916:
904:
888:
863:
840:
812:
796:
784:
764:
760:. The oppressed Galileos in whom you believe may yet change the world, but that is not for Knowledge (XXG) to accomodate. --
748:
712:
692:
679:
659:
639:
623:
608:
596:
584:
563:
547:
520:
506:
488:
474:
461:
437:
418:
395:
367:
355:
327:
315:
303:
291:
279:
248:
52:
1280:
744:, whose suppression attempt went already for several long decades, in order to open these deeply crystallized minds. --
36:
821:
examination of alternatives. This is not a question of how "out there" you think EU is, its a matter of suppression!
730:, suppressing data (articles with valuable sourced data) from different views existent in society, when it should be "
182:
154:
74:
66:
58:
726:
1279:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
379:'s point 5 above is decisive. We can have articles about pseudoscientific theories (and even hoaxes), but they
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1045:
1257:, though obviously not a reliable source for verifying the concept's claims, does verify that its proponents
776:
With such a detailed and clearly well thought out and accurate nomination, there is little more one can say.
429:
Here's the problem. It appears that the subject has been noted by the press, as evidenced by links such as
732:
unacceptable for Knowledge (XXG) to to be dogmatic or one-sided, in stark contrast to for example textbooks
230:
124:
1049:
352:
324:
873:
832:
1128:
781:
761:
376:
288:
245:
777:
466:
It is extremely difficult to create such an article for a theory that isn't completely incoherent like
1198:
1025:
925:
881:
869:
828:
1202:
1041:
929:
885:
740:
194:
that will be subject to a future peer-reviewed publication. This assertion also is in reference to
1033:
1012:
705:
516:
appear that an argument for notability based on media-attention to the subject is fairly tenuous.
215:
202:
1084:
986:
964:
456:
413:
49:
745:
1111:
without prejudice. Per nom, and because the article as it stands is something of a travesty.
1124:
808:
593:
348:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
388:
267:
Commentary moved to the Talk page. Please keep discussion there, this page is for the voting.
198:. As such the "electric universe" has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.
147:
The article is written mostly by supporters and advocates of the concept which is a definite
1177:
668:
636:
573:
539:
503:
471:
336:
195:
187:
1215:
1029:
985:
while maybe some of these apparently loony ideas carry the seeds of a much better paradigm.
968:
speaking engagements in the New Age scene. (Though if the books Amazon sales rank of : -->
757:
675:. However, ambiplasma passes the notablility test, whereas EU really doesn't at this time.
480:
222:
218:
148:
959:
I think the concept of "Electric Universe" probably meets the proposed criteria 6 or 7 at
709:
1220:
1190:
1008:
1004:
648:
616:
556:
226:
211:
166:
159:
132:
120:
1262:
1250:
430:
312:
1228:
1224:
1194:
1144:
701:
652:
207:
128:
1160:
1112:
1037:
913:
735:
656:
446:
We've been talking about the criteria for notability for scientific theories over at
392:
171:
1232:
1148:
1132:
860:
805:
721:
581:
560:
517:
485:
434:
276:
104:
1099:
as complete bollucks and hoax by persons with zero understanding of electricity.
1100:
1079:
793:
676:
451:
408:
1189:
I fail to see how this argument addresses the concerns of this topic violating
1020:
be written as a popular culture article, but currently the single reference to
901:
689:
672:
620:
577:
384:
364:
300:
237:
136:
632:
544:
467:
404:
1066:
605:
190:(a different idea). Just recently, this charge was reinvorgated with the
970:
973:
are to be believed, they are only selling a handful a year at Amazon.)
700:. There is no way to locate reliable information that would satisfy
497:
My suggestion here would be for you to start rewriting the article
855:
have an article on it. If it does ever achieve legitimacy, then
1273:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1254:
1048:, final paragraph) as the due weight to be afforded this topic.
175:
592:
per Arthur Rubin above, and as original research by synthesis.
479:
External sites appear to contain thorough debunkings, such as
965:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Electric+Universe%22+Plasma
924:
per nom. This is a compelling and well presented request. --
383:
be properly externally verifiable. A single brief article in
960:
127:, and it being impossible to reach standards required of
1007:
understands it; indeed, a case could be argued that the
576:
article by proposing to Merge it with one of its stubs,
538:, per nom. At best, this should be a sub-section in the
481:
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/pseudoscience.html
323:- I cannot say more than what the nominator has said.
191:
140:
100:
96:
92:
1216:
WP is not for something you make up in school one day
431:
http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,68258,00.html
287:
per nom with reservations too minor to debate here.
259:
Comments on the nomination redacted to the talkpage
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
229:. As such the subject fully and completely defies
1283:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1249:per media recognition in the Wired News article
1034:Knowledge (XXG)'s status as non-censored content
851:currently legitimate, and therefore we should
181:Contributors who support and advocate EU have
8:
233:in the "media recognition" category as well.
214:independent review of this idea since it is
1261:, and that's what our article can present.
880:) has made only two edits at this time. --
671:and make a sub-paragraph there. Same with
363:I agree with the nominator on all points
859:the time for a Knowledge (XXG) article.
335:. Impressively researched nomination.
943:good look at him/her and his/her type.
971:http://www.fonerbooks.com/surfing.htm
758:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball
165:The article includes very misleading
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
940:Keep or merge, but warn and truncate
734:". As a joke, I usually say that if
343:, but possibly notable, but this is
961:http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:SCIENCE
24:
1127:, or even a complex zero of the
1009:guidelines for extremist sources
900:per item 5 in the nomination. —
847:That's rather the point. It is
387:is not enough to build a proper
112:Two years ago, this article was
1251:"They Sing the Comet Electric"
1219:reach much further to satisfy
619:apparently...not verifiable.--
1:
1028:(sometimes drifting towards
727:Knowledge (XXG):Five pillars
720:, I fully agree with editor
223:internet verifiability rules
1266:03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
1236:16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
1206:05:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
1181:03:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
1164:01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
1152:23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
1136:19:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
1116:12:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
1104:06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
1090:06:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
1071:05:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
1053:04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
990:03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
933:03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
917:01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
905:01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
889:03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
864:01:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
841:01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
813:00:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
797:00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
785:00:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
765:23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
749:23:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
713:22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
693:22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
680:21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
660:20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
640:19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
624:18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
609:17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
597:17:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
585:17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
564:17:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
548:16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
521:20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
507:20:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
489:20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
475:19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
462:18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
438:16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
419:15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
396:15:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
368:15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
356:15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
328:14:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
316:13:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
304:13:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
292:13:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
280:13:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
249:13:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
67:Electric universe (concept)
59:Electric universe (concept)
53:00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
1300:
555:per excellent nom. Fails
174:and descriptive links to
1276:Please do not modify it.
802:Delete without prejudice
427:Delete without prejudice
32:Please do not modify it.
391:encyclopaedia article.
1001:As a scientific theory
780:does spring to mind.--
1129:Riemann zeta function
827:comment was added by
647:per nom. Failures of
377:User:ScienceApologist
347:and not notable. —
227:reliability concerns
149:conflict of interest
1253:. The material at
1042:Immanuel Velikovsky
604:as per nomination.
311:as per nomination.
1032:) or an appeal to
1259:make those claims
1255:thunderbolts.info
1147:in the process.
1125:magnetic monopole
1088:
844:
810:
617:Original research
460:
417:
325:Dr. Submillimeter
167:original research
160:original research
121:original research
1291:
1278:
1174:Keep in entirety
1082:
1050:Serpent's Choice
822:
809:
782:Anthony.bradbury
762:ScienceApologist
669:Plasma cosmology
574:Plasma_cosmology
540:Plasma cosmology
454:
425:Keep and stubify
411:
337:Plasma cosmology
289:Metamagician3000
246:ScienceApologist
196:plasma cosmology
188:plasma cosmology
108:
90:
34:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1281:deletion review
1274:
1062:amused contempt
823:—The preceding
426:
183:falsely claimed
153:There are only
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1297:
1295:
1286:
1285:
1269:
1268:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1209:
1208:
1184:
1183:
1169:
1167:
1166:
1154:
1138:
1118:
1106:
1093:
1092:
1074:
1073:
1055:
1013:fringe science
993:
992:
981:
980:
975:
974:
969:1,000,000 and
956:
955:
951:
950:
945:
944:
936:
935:
919:
907:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
815:
799:
787:
770:
769:
768:
767:
752:
751:
715:
695:
682:
662:
642:
626:
611:
599:
587:
566:
550:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
510:
509:
492:
491:
464:
448:a project page
441:
440:
424:
421:
398:
370:
358:
330:
318:
306:
294:
282:
264:
263:
242:
241:
238:another editor
234:
199:
179:
163:
151:
137:another editor
125:non-notability
110:
109:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1296:
1284:
1282:
1277:
1271:
1270:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1244:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1086:
1081:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1063:
1059:
1058:edit and keep
1056:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:false dilemma
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
995:
994:
991:
988:
987:Robin Whittle
983:
982:
977:
976:
972:
966:
962:
958:
957:
953:
952:
947:
946:
941:
938:
937:
934:
931:
927:
923:
920:
918:
915:
911:
908:
906:
903:
899:
896:
890:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
866:
865:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
845:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
819:
816:
814:
811:
807:
803:
800:
798:
795:
791:
788:
786:
783:
779:
775:
772:
771:
766:
763:
759:
756:
755:
754:
753:
750:
747:
743:
742:
737:
736:Reincarnation
733:
729:
728:
723:
719:
716:
714:
711:
707:
703:
699:
696:
694:
691:
686:
683:
681:
678:
674:
670:
666:
663:
661:
658:
654:
650:
646:
643:
641:
638:
634:
630:
627:
625:
622:
618:
615:
612:
610:
607:
603:
600:
598:
595:
591:
588:
586:
583:
579:
575:
570:
567:
565:
562:
558:
554:
551:
549:
546:
541:
537:
534:
533:
522:
519:
514:
513:
512:
511:
508:
505:
500:
496:
495:
494:
493:
490:
487:
482:
478:
477:
476:
473:
469:
465:
463:
458:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
436:
432:
428:
422:
420:
415:
410:
406:
402:
399:
397:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
371:
369:
366:
362:
359:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:
329:
326:
322:
319:
317:
314:
310:
307:
305:
302:
298:
295:
293:
290:
286:
283:
281:
278:
274:
271:
270:
269:
268:
262:
260:
256:
253:
252:
251:
250:
247:
239:
236:As stated by
235:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
213:
209:
204:
200:
197:
193:
189:
184:
180:
177:
173:
172:Hannes Alfven
168:
164:
161:
156:
152:
150:
146:
145:
144:
141:
138:
134:
130:
129:verifiability
126:
122:
118:
115:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
50:Mailer Diablo
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1275:
1272:
1258:
1246:
1173:
1168:
1156:
1140:
1120:
1108:
1096:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1021:
1017:
1000:
996:
939:
921:
909:
897:
856:
852:
848:
817:
801:
789:
773:
739:
731:
725:
717:
708:enthusiasm.
697:
684:
664:
644:
628:
613:
601:
594:Tom Harrison
589:
568:
552:
535:
498:
423:
400:
380:
372:
360:
349:Arthur Rubin
344:
340:
332:
320:
308:
296:
284:
275:as per nom.
272:
266:
265:
261:
254:
243:
117:for deletion
111:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1178:Millueradfa
1030:WP:IWROTEIT
912:per above.
778:WP:BOLLOCKS
637:Philosophus
504:Philosophus
472:Philosophus
192:false claim
133:reliability
1214:I agree.
1026:WP:ILIKEIT
710:EdJohnston
673:Ambiplasma
578:Ambiplasma
385:Wired News
231:notability
208:verifiable
155:two people
1263:Tim Smith
870:Aclog7373
829:Aclog7373
706:WP:FRINGE
633:Time Cube
468:Time Cube
405:Time Cube
313:Mike Peel
299:per nom.
114:nominated
1161:Awolf002
1113:Cardamon
914:Doczilla
878:contribs
837:contribs
825:unsigned
792:per nom
665:Redirect
657:Resolute
407:status.
393:Demiurge
212:reliable
1233:ju66l3r
1149:ju66l3r
1133:Anville
1121:Delete.
861:Tevildo
806:Lambiam
741:Galileo
722:Ionized
582:Ionized
561:Tevildo
518:Tarinth
486:Tarinth
435:Tarinth
389:WP:NPOV
277:Chrisch
255:Comment
219:notable
84:protect
79:history
1157:Delete
1141:Delete
1109:Delete
1101:Edison
1097:Delete
1080:Sdedeo
997:Delete
922:Delete
910:Delete
898:Delete
868:Note:
857:that's
794:Vsmith
790:Delete
774:Delete
698:Delete
685:Delete
677:ABlake
645:Delete
629:Delete
614:Delete
602:Delete
590:Delete
553:Delete
536:Delete
452:Sdedeo
409:Sdedeo
401:Delete
373:Delete
361:Delete
353:(talk)
333:Delete
321:Delete
309:Delete
297:Delete
285:Delete
273:Delete
203:fringe
201:For a
88:delete
46:delete
1221:WP:OR
1191:WP:OR
1022:Wired
1018:could
1005:WP:RS
902:BillC
746:Utad3
690:zowie
649:WP:OR
621:MONGO
557:WP:OR
365:TSO1D
345:wrong
341:wrong
301:MER-C
135:. As
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1247:Keep
1229:WP:V
1225:WP:N
1203:Talk
1197:. --
1195:WP:N
1193:and
1145:WP:V
1085:tips
1046:here
930:Talk
886:Talk
874:talk
833:talk
818:KEEP
718:Keep
702:WP:V
653:WP:V
651:and
569:Keep
545:Kesh
457:tips
414:tips
381:must
225:and
210:nor
176:NASA
131:and
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
48:. -
1227:or
1223:or
1199:EMS
1067:DGG
926:EMS
882:EMS
853:not
849:not
667:to
606:HEL
580:. -
499:now
351:|
339:is
216:not
1201:|
928:|
884:|
876:•
839:)
835:•
655:.
559:.
375:,
257::
244:--
123:,
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
1087:)
1083:(
1044:(
872:(
843:.
831:(
459:)
455:(
416:)
412:(
162:.
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.