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 redirect to Gilbert Ling. I would like to commend PaulGWiki on his efforts to keep this article intact. Much work has been done and it is without a doubt in my mind that in deleting this article, some useful knowledge will be lost to the English Wikipedia and its readers. That being said, there is clearly a strong argument from the delete camp that cites a number of fundamental problems that surround the complex issues of scientific articles that deal in alternate theories. Especially ones that are against the popular scientific convention of the time. This article and its content were very difficult to verify. Not only does it reference esoteric content, but also publications that would not be widely available to the general public. In what was a difficult and possibly a contentious decision, I had to examine the points of the discussion against what was available at the article in its current state. I found that for the key statements and claims made in the article, almost 8 of out 10 times directly referenced material published by the theories creator, Gilbert Ling, including much of the criticisms section. The issues of WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OVERREF, and WP:BURDEN were not addressed or countered strongly enough (though valiantly and verbosely) to offset the concerns of the wider community. There were also off-wiki canvassing concerns as multiple single purpose editors weighed in. Mkdw ^talk 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association induction hypothesis

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In short : WP:FRINGE. To establish otherwise, please do not cite numerous sources, but only a couple of them, which you have checked to be relevant.

I came here via Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention. Although I am not working in the field, the article and its talk page raises multiple red flags for WP:FRINGE:

One person doing the bulk of the editing, and contesting content disputes (on the talk page, saying that a source from the Economist should be dismissed).
A very, very, very bad case of WP:OVERREF, in the article but also in the talk page. Note that the sources are merely cited, not discussed - there might be, in the bulk, something about the mating behavior of beavers, that I would not have noticed it.
Extraordinary claims that would need extraordinary proof: "Water and ions in cells exist in a different physical state than in a dilute water solution", wow! Or, in a related note, statements that are not even wrong, as "Although much extracellular sodium ion and water molecules diffuse in and out of the cell, no energy is required for the exchange." (diffusion does not require "energy" - is that talking about ATP generation or what?).

It seems, from my reading of a few of the references, that some simply have nothing to do with the subject. Tigraan (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Tigraan. This definitely has all the hallmarks of fringe science, but may *just barely* rise to the level of notable fringe science. I don't quite see it, however, and even if it is kept, needs to be heavily rewritten to make clear that these are fringe theories. PianoDan (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fringe or valid alternative hypothesis? What are the criteria to decide?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a very clear case of WP:FRINGE. Although the quantity is impressive, the exposition describes one outlandish idea after the other, the most clearly wrong of which is this one: "Although much extracellular sodium ion and water molecules diffuse in and out of the cell, no energy is required for the exchange. In theory, the cell could hold these asymmetrical concentrations forever without using energy." ~~In my view,~~ violations of the second law of thermodynamics ~~should~~ do automatically qualify anything for FRINGE per an explicit example in WP:FRINGE/PS. I should also add that I have found no sources that would qualify this for WP:NFRINGE, but given the amount that has been written about the subject by its primary proponent, I would not be surprised if such sources existed. Even if they did, though, the article that could be written on this subject would be vastly different from the present one, which promotes the theory. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, each of those sentences taken separately is not a violation of the Second law, and they could be read not to imply one: a solid wall would allow to "hold" assymmetric concentration on each side with no energy, "in theory", even if in practice there is exchange through the membrane and this is not possible to have a cycle. Hence my call on not even wrong: it is written so obscurely that it could be wrong and stupid or trivial and uninteresting, and choosing between the two is up to the reader's choice. Tigraan (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable WP:FRINGE. -- 120.17.113.201 (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is long and densely referenced and completely incoherent. Clearly fringe; author seems to be an SPA. (Related article Gilbert Ling badly needs a cleanup - despite its length I'm not convinced he's notable either.) It's too bad that being reasonably well-formatted at first glance seems to have allowed this article to survive this long. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable WP:FRINGE. With regards Fringe Theory Notability as described below I thought I have already addressed the same issues raised above in the Articles Talk page, in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_induction_hypothesis#Comments_Relating_to_reverts_from_Red_Pen_of_doom. Please read the extended content carefully and come back with what I am failing to show.

policy quote collapsed by Tigraan
For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. 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)."

policy quote collapsed by Tigraan

For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. 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)."

I would characterize the AIH as an Alternative theoretical theory of how the cell works, yes it is fringe but nonetheless the only complete and scientifically reasoned alternative that has reliable third-party sources and significant independent coverage or recognition from reliable and recognized peer reviewed publications or credible and authoritative books and is therefore notable.

policy quote collapsed by Tigraan
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream. In other cases an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream. Such examples of this are the existence of Troy,[4][5] heliocentrism,[6] the Norse colonization of the Americas, and Big Bang Theory[7] To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."

policy quote collapsed by Tigraan

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories

"Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream. In other cases an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream. Such examples of this are the existence of Troy,[4][5] heliocentrism,[6] the Norse colonization of the Americas, and Big Bang Theory[7]

To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."

PaulGWiki (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulGWiki: As the creator of the page, you did provide many references, which is part of the problem. I do not think anyone else than you is going to read them all (if you did), and many of them are simply irrelevant, which I stated in this AfD. Please read WP:BOMBARD carefully, it is not long, and it is the problem I ask you to address.

Could you give one, two or maybe three references that establish notability of the theory? Not more. If possible, discuss those sources in less than 200 words.

Of course you are under no obligation to do that. However, if you did and were able to demonstrate notability under those space constraints, I would withdraw my nomination. It does not mean other sources would be useless or should be taken off the article; it would mean that there is significant coverage in reliable sources etc.

Now, since you brought up the question of whether this is scientific fringe (e.g. volcanic death of dinosaurs) or pseudoscience (e.g. motors that "turn water into water with positive energy output", from another Wikipedian's formulation in a talk page), I do think this article "indulges a suspect theoretical premise" as well as "proposes changes in the basic laws of nature (...) but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes". See above Sammy1339's comment.

I collapsed your quotes from policy to shorten the page. Feel free to remove the collapse-top and collapse-bottom templates if you do not like it.

Tigraan (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a Neurosurgeon, Ling work was critical in formation of the original MRI machine from the Fonar Company and Ray Damadian. Moreover, the basis of all of Gerald Pollack's work on water chemistry comes from Ling's work and is an extension of it. I cannot fathom where we might be in neurosurgery if Ling's work was openly discussed. The man has changed the trajectory of neurosurgery with his work on imaging. 67.142.96.10 (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Jack Kruse — 67.142.96.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It may be so, but so is any claim that is not in direct contradiction with the laws of logic and physics. Where is the proof? Feel free to be WP:BOLD and edit the article. Tigraan (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may deserve to be noted that the main reason this theory has been published in scientific journals is that Ling is the editor-in-chief of this one: [1], and has extensively published there, as well as accepted submissions from other investigators of this theory. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gilbert Ling. This theory doesn't seem to have any traction among other researchers; it's nearly uniquely associated with Dr. Ling. There's already a reasonably sized discussion of the theory in Dr. Ling's article, and there's insufficient independent coverage of this fringe theory to justify a separate article. Pburka (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. We are an encyclopedia, not a web host for every failed theory. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is clearly fringe and nonsense. Per arguments by Bearian, Opabinia regalis, and Tigraan --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are the objective criteria for labeling it clearly fringe and nonsense?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see the various comments and articles sighted by the editors I mentioned. I think they make it very clear what the criteria are and why this article clearly meets them. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not really sure this was worth re-listing. We need more reliable sources and more significant coverage, not simply more "sources". St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm re-listing, it allows more people, more time to comment and make improvement. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right - no harm at all. Just don't like the idea of dragging a deletion discussion out and delaying the inevitable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at most *Redirect - no reason to delete per my two comments above.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to Gilbert Ling and then seriously go about cleaning up the Ling article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessarily extended and non-neutral treatment of a minor fringe theory. Possible redirect to Gilbert Ling#Association induction hypothesis, where the tone and referencing of the discussion of this failed hypothesis needs attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked a bit more closely, I'll note that Gilbert Ling needs some attention in general. Most of the section on the AI hypothesis was a straight copy-paste from Ling's website. There are other passages in the article which are copy-pasted or which have dubious sourcing and neutrality as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if enough sources are found per WP:FRIND. Wikipedia has an article about flat Earth, so being fringe isn't a reason for deletion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The flat earth article is quite different. First, flat earth is a fringe theory that had and even still has quite a bit of discussion in good sources. Second, the flat earth article doesn't present the theory as a legitimate theory, it describes it AS a fringe theory, where as the current article under discussion treats association induction as a legitimate theory rather than as the patent nonsense that it is. The question is does AI rate the attention of flat earth or creationism where it treats the article as a fringe theory (which would essentially require rewriting the whole article) I think it clearly doesn't, it doesn't have anywhere near the traction of often discussed fringe theories such as flat earth. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Apologies for lack of feedback been busy on a project. I will attempt to fairly summarise the criticisms above, provide my take on things and address specific comments

Bad case of WP:OVERREF and WP:BOMBARD

Agree with this

Theory is nonsense or incoherent

Comments relating to the theory as being nonsense, incoherent or violating the third law of thermodynamics need qualification otherwise there are just personal opinion and not relevant to the debate. I think it would be useful to provide:

Specific examples
How many of Ling’s books and articles you have read or alternatively how much time you have spent looking at the Wiki article and the related references
An indication of your level of education and expertise in Biochemistry and Cell physiology

Addressing Individual Comments

@Bearian: "nonsense. We are an encyclopedia, not a web host for every failed theory."

See comments above

@MadScientistX11: "It is clearly fringe and nonsense. Per arguments by Bearian, Opabinia regalis, and Tigraan"

See comments above

@Opabinia regalis: "this is long and densely referenced and completely incoherent. Clearly fringe; author seems to be an SPA."

See comments above. Author is not Self published. He has written books by various publishers.^[1] and submitted 19 papers to independent peer reviewed journals

WP:FRINGE or WP:NFRINGE

Majority of comments relate to this and the basis for suggestion that article should be deleted. So, my understanding of the policy is that for the AIH to be considered a Notable Fringe theory it must meet these criteria:

Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
Referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner by publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers.
Peer-Reviewed by people of similar competence to the Author

In the section of the article entitled List of papers independent of Ling submitted to peer reviewed scientific journals I list 19 articles that meet these criteria.

Is this not enough to be considered significant? Are there not independent? Are they not reliable?

In the section of the article entitled List of some books that discuss the Association Induction Hypothesis I list 16 books that meet these criteria and that contain significant sections on Ling. For example Pollack’s book Cell, Gells and the Engines of Life was heavily influenced and inspired by Ling's work.

Again Is this not enough to be considered significant? Are there not independent? Are they not reliable?

In the section entitled Criticisms of the theory there are 22 cites from respected scientist that have peer reviewed and providing criticisms of the AIH theory.

Again Is this not enough to be considered significant? Are there not independent? Are they not reliable?

In addition Ling has submitted 19 papers to independent peer reviewed journals.

Addressing Individual Comments

@Sammy1339:

"I have found no sources that would qualify this for WP:NFRINGE"

Which of the 57 independent cites listed above do you consider not supporting the notability criteria?

"It may deserve to be noted that the main reason this theory has been published in scientific journals is that Ling is the editor-in-chief of this one: [2], and has extensively published there, as well as accepted submissions from other investigators of this theory. "-

Whilst this is true it ignores the 19 independent articles, the 16 independent books,the 22 independent scientists of similar competence to the author that have peer reviewed aspects of the AIH and the 19 papers Ling submitted to independent peer reviewed journals.

@Pburka:

"Redirect to Gilbert Ling. This theory doesn't seem to have any traction among other researchers; it's nearly uniquely associated with Dr. Ling. There's already a reasonably sized discussion of the theory in Dr. Ling's article, and there's insufficient independent coverage of this fringe theory to justify a separate article."

It is fair to say that Ling's work has been marginalised and ignored by mainstream science, however there has been accumulation of evidence that for example intracellular water is structured. See response to Tigraan below.

@Tigraan:

"It seems, from my reading of a few of the references, that some simply have nothing to do with the subject."

All the cites refer to the subject matter I wouldn't have put them in otherwise. This is an unfair comment. Please provide specific examples.

"Extraordinary claims that would need extraordinary proof: "Water and ions in cells exist in a different physical state than in a dilute water solution", wow!"

In 1965, Gilbert Ling wrote a paper entitled “The Physical State of Water in Living Cell and Model Systems” in which he argued and showed evidence for intracellular water being in a different state to normal water. This was not accepted at the time by mainstream science and was largely ignored but since that time evidence has been amassing that intracellular water is in fact different to normal water. Martin Chaplin, a renowned scientific expert on water and water structure argues that yes, intracellular water is structured.^[2]. PaulGWiki (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dr. Ling's answers to the question of "what is life" are based on the unified physical theory of the living cell created by Dr. G. Ling half century ago. Archimedes once said: "Give me a fulcrum and I shall move the world." Dr. Ling has found the fulcrum to move the world of cell physiology. It is adsorption properties of proteins. Indeed, Dr. Ling explained fundamental physical properties of the living cell basing only on protein ability to adsorb water, ions and other solutes by their molecular surface. Ling's theory, as a good physical theory, explains of great number of facts starting from a modest amount of initial principles (similar to how few Newton's laws explain physical world at large from properties of a dirty stone up to the beautiful Universe). Ling's theory contradicts many "truths" that we know from our school time. This book is delicacy for a person who loves exploring the contradictions. If no one contradicted Ptolemy, we still lived in the center of the Universe. I appeal the Editor to save this page so that a reader can have a choice between conventional theories and new ideas. Genuine science is impossible without new ideas. Let the scientific community and the time will decide which way is the best. Colleagues should be aware of this theory to judge it. Dr. Vladimir Matveev, VladimirMatveev (talk • contribs) 06:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — VladimirMatveev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, doctor, Wikipedia has very specific prohibitions on the publication of original ideas, new ideas or original research. Ideas must have been the subject of significant coverage from others (effectively, "the mainstream") before we publish them here. In short, it is not Wikipedia's job to "contradict Ptolemy". We don't do that here and arguments that we should make an exception for this particular subject are likely to fall on deaf ears. Respectfully, St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To put it bluntly, if Wikipedia existed in 1616, it would feature heliocentrism as a fringe view held by lunatics, or not feature it at all because of WP:FRINGE.

By the way, I am amazed that for his first edit, VladimirMatveev (who has a conflict of interest if it is his real name, see ref.6) found the way of the articles for deletion page and knew how to format a 'keep' !vote. Tigraan (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan, he didn't - his comments were cleaned up after for clarity. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulGWiki: aabout your remarks to Sammy1339:

"I have found no sources that would qualify this for WP:NFRINGE"

Which of the 57 independent cites listed above do you consider not supporting the notability criteria?

WP:BURDEN. Again, 57 is probably 53 more than necessary, it just obfuscates the issue. Why are you agreeing with the WP:BOMBARD issue if you immediately pursue the same bad habit?

For instance, taking the first one on the list ("Membrane Potential Generated by Ion Adsorption" by Hirohisa Tamagawa and Sachi Morita), it is published by MDPI which is on Beall's list of predatory open-access publishers - that is, they take author fees without providing any serious editorial services (remember this incident?) - which means anyone can get pretty much anything published in those low-quaity papers, even if they claim to be "peer-reviewed". Some are less unserious than others: there can be no review whatsoever, only internal review, or shaky peer-review; it goes a full range between greedy scammers to incompetent would-be editors - but the point is none of them is trustworthy for scientific content. (I am not going through the whole list, and I am not going to discuss Beall's criteria here. Beall's list is widely regarded as correct.)

Moreover, I would dispute the term "independant": G. H. Pollack, for instance, is apparently one of Ling's fanboys - see for instance this letter (scroll down the German text) which is a bad hybrid of pseudoscience and nigerian scam.

Tigraan (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

^ Ling, Gilbert. "Amazon Author". www.amazon.com.
^ Chaplin, Martin. "Water Structure and Science". http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html. ((cite web)): External link in |website= (help)