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. czar 14:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counterspace[edit]

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

Seems to be wholely original research. I cannot find any other information on "counterspace" online. The article appears to have been created by the concept creator, Nick Thomas, in 2006. As per WP:OR and WP:GNG. Only other source may refer to something different, I cannot find a copy of it online. Acalycine (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Interestingly the term itself seems to be used in a variety of ways. I would not be surprised to see a disambig page of some sort. But this entry doesn't appear to me to be useful. For an example of one of the ways the term is used see "Counterspace"+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy_4XBqqLbAhVQ7VMKHTY8AnkQ6AEIVTAI#v=onepage&q="Counterspace"%20-wikipedia&f=false here. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's a merge/redirect target I overlooked. There are sources, such as Olive Whicher's 1975 The Idea of Counterspace. But that book in particular reveals what is going on here, as its original publisher was The Anthroposophic Press. Indeed, this is fringe stuff: a pseudoscientific effort to apply some form of math and physics to the philosophy of anthroposophy. This is too minor a facet to warrant merger to the main article on that topic, either, and I don't think there's any related article that actually would serve as a redirect target. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ~~unsourceable and~~ fringe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that this is unsourcable does not stand up. Undoubtedly, everything in the article can be sourced to Thomas's book(s). It may even be notable—Thomas's ideas are discussed inependently in books here and here. The real problem with this article is that the idea is WP:FRINGE, and then some, but it is presented, in Wikipedia's voice, as being mainstream. In the absence of sources discussing the validity of these ideas and an editor willing to rewrite the article, I'm going for delete on the grounds of WP:FRINGELEVEL and WP:TNT. It wouldn't be so bad if this was obviously a fringe/spiritual subject, but we just can't have psuedoscience being presented as real science on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 13:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I am not the original author of this entry (see my wikipedia history, I just revived this page + edited) - I have been looking for some information on Counter-space/counterspace for a while (not the spiritiual/fringe one, but rather the mathematical one - look at this youtube video for a demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGf36UQ9elE). I went to add this page because the George Adams Kaufmann page, as well as his books, go into detail about counterspace, with no links there. So I think having a page on the subject is reasonable and matches wikipedia policy. When I went to create this page, I noticed that the author of one of the sources (Thomas) already had a page written, and I figured I wasn't going to be able to make one that's better than what an author did, so I revived it and did some editing (e.g. removing some of the spiritual points, and rather trying to stick to the mathematics and non-eucluidean geometry aspects of it). I'm certainly all for a disambiguation page if there's other more notable mentions of the subject, but if we can't even revive it for ONE reason, I don't see how we're going to revive it for multiple. Certainly, if anyone wants to edit the page & remove anything they don't feel is worth mentioning, or rewording anything, I'm all for it Marquinho
Delete as unremarkable WP:FRINGE material. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's some here: https://books.google.com/books?id=zWNJPwAACAAJ&dq=counterspace&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE94yRo6vbAhVDS6wKHZ9CANoQ6AEISjAF, https://books.google.com/books?id=LnPfMgEACAAJ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis8smgo6vbAhULG6wKHbh4DJ8Q6AEILzAB Marquinho
- I've moved the above text which you inserted inside another user's post. You really mustn't do that, you are changing what someone else has said. You apparently offered these in response to the comment the the source cannot be found online. Those links are to books that cannot be previewed online and therefore doesn't answer the point. It merely shows that someone wrote a book with "counterspace" in the title. Have you read those works? If not then this adds nothing to the discussion. SpinningSpark 18:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first of those two sources is published by Verlag am Goetheanum and the second by Rudolf Steiner Press. The former was the in-house publisher of the Anthroposophical Society until it was de jure given independence in 1995 to maintain the society's charity status; it is de facto not an independent publisher. The latter is the Steiner estate's exclusive publisher and distributor in the UK, and publishes essentially only anthroposophy-related material. Neither of these constitutes an independent source for showing that this concept has any currency at all outside of anthroposophy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt as WP:FRINGE which is presented in a non-critical tone. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were notable, it would need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic form. As it stands, this is mainly OR. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Very original. -The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2018 (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.