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. Analysis by DGG was compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The operator theory[edit]

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

Article reads like an essay promoting what looks like a non-notable fringe theory. About half of the references are by Jagers op Akkerhuis, the creator of the theory; as for the rest, I somehow doubt that they actually mention the "operator theory". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may well be a fringe theory, it lies within a field that is notable for consisting primarily of fringe theories. The article is obviously written by Jagers op Akkerhuis, and as such requires substantial cleanup and NPOV-fixing. That said, it doesn't take a lot of searching online to discover that this theory has been referenced and disputed a bit. Examples include The Issue of “Closure” in Jagers op Akkerhuis’s Operator Theory by Nico M. van Straalen, What Is Life? A New Theory by Clara Moskowitz, Astrobiology Magazine, Evolution's Next Step by Smaranda Biliuti and Operator Hierarchy - Next Step In Evolution A Technical Life Form That Passes On Knowledge And Experience?. There's an interestingly sketchy article at the University of Wageningen, Life is about organization. Further, if you were to look into the references (I'm assuming you're familiar with the field since you're making a value judgement on the article), you'd see that this theory strongly resonates with Metasystem transition theory, one of the primary proponents of which, Francis Heylighen, is cited in the references for an article about closure complexity. The connection is strong. There are many problems with the theory itself, it seems to be overstretching a simple idea, trying to connect to many others, but that doesn't make it invalid as an article. Just fix it up. --Smári McCarthy (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Gerard Jagers op Akkerhuis: Dear Editors of WIKI, I have very much appreciated your constructive contributions. I have now edited the article according to NPOV (This was new for me. I learned a lot. Hope it is OK now). The contribution is the result of 17 years of development and a second PhD. I aim at creating an absolutely unbiased WIKI that has an outstanding scientific content and that gives everyone the opportunity to profit from the results of a lifetime of work in this field of science (I am 51, still many years left to do beautiful things ;->). Hope you agree that the quality of this page is best safeguarded when I write it myself. It will be most interesting to get the reactions of your science editors. WIKI is new for me, but so far I you have impressed me! Kind regards, Gerard Jagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jager008 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From what I can tell, the fact that so many people have criticized this theory means that it's worthy of attention and criticism, and is therefore notable. However, it most likely needs WP:NPOV attention from subject matter experts now, as the article has now been edited by someone with a conflict of interest, as discussed above. Zachlipton (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there are sources the article does a disservice to Wikipedia. It is clearly a fringe theory yet it is presented as if its claims were true. No amount of "clean-up" and "improve" will be helpful since those into the "theory" will be the only ones interested. Borock (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Borock, it would be my pleasure to discuss factual aspects of the theory with you. In order to have a scientific discussion about your remarks, it would be very usefull if you would be willing to indicate more specifically which statements you talk about when you state that they cannot be improved or which statements you consider as to be of interest to a limited group of people only. Thank you in advance.Jager008 (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That shows what I was talking about. You need to present your theory someplace where it can be peer reviewed. An encyclopedia is not the place for that. Borock (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Borock, the theory has been peer reviewed many times. Here I only present a short outline of internationally and peer reviewed published work. The various aspects of the theory have been published in five separate peer reviewed papers and the entire work has been the subject of my second PhD which was judged by Prof. Henk Barendregt (Spinoza prize winner, mathematics), Prof. Nico van Straalen (ecotoxicology), Prof. Francis Heylighen (system scientist and particle physicist), Prof. Henk Siepel (ecologist), Prof. Diedel Kornet (ecologist), dr. Luca Consoli (particle physicist) and Prof. Hub Zwart (geneticist, philosopher). So there is no need to suggest that this theory would require more or new peer review. Kind regards, Gerard Jagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jager008 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV original research essay; insufficient evidence of notability; main author has clear COI. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors of Wikipedia, in relation to notability, the below links provide a selection of internet sources indicating third parties that have taken interest and/or have discussed various aspects of the operator theory. The list covers a range of languages and countries.

General: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2844/Archief/archief/article/detail/593468/2001/09/26/Einstein-zal-niet-meer-dood-gaan.dhtml http://www.sense.ecs.soton.ac.uk/levels-of-selection-workshop-2009/abstracts/Jagers.pdf http://www.wur.nl/uk/newsagenda/archive/news/2010/Life_is_about_organization.htm http://www.bionieuws.nl/artikel.php?id=5487&zoek=evolutie

Television broadcast in which the operator theory plays an important role: http://weblogs.vpro.nl/labyrint/2011/01/11/technologische-evolutie/

Definition of life based on the operator theory: http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3400/bringing-the-definition-of-%E2%80%98life%E2%80%99-to-closure reproduced and discussed e.g. in: http://www.space.com/7898-life-theory.html http://www.physorg.com/news185126689.html http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Bringing_The_Definition_Of_Life_To_Closure_999.html http://universitam.com/academicos/?tag=gerard-jagers-op-akkerhuis http://iscfuture.org/documents.html http://www.sciencemagnews.com/tag/evolution http://sixooninele.blogspot.com/2010/04/apa-itu-kehidupan-dan-ini-teorinya.html?showComment=1271506809951 http://mithomail.blog.de/2010/02/26/neue-definition-leben-8077345/ http://wenzelsopinion.de/?p=286 http://www.losarchivosdelatierra.com/inicio/2010/9/8/el-proximo-paso-en-la-evolucion-una-forma-de-vida-tecnica-qu.html http://apatheticlemming.blogspot.com/2010/02/its-alive-okay-now-tell-me-what-alive.html http://echoesofapollo.com/2010/02/14/latest-space-news-2010-02-12/ http://grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.blogspot.com/2010/02/biologe-prasentiert-neue-definition-fur.html

The article that the radboud university has published in relation to the PhH has been reproduced and/or discussed in e.g.: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/operator_hierarchy_next_step_evolution_technical_life_form_passes_knowledge_and_experience http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100903072649.htm http://news.softpedia.com/news/Evolution-s-Next-Step-Passing-Knowledge-and-Experience-154993.shtml http://desertfalconrising.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=12&Itemid=62&limitstart=14 http://www.silobreaker.com/operator-hierarchy--next-step-in-evolution-a-technical-life-form-that-passes-on-knowledge-and-experience-5_2263700257948827648 http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=84227&CultureCode=en http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts13783861.aspx http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/article/27377/A-technical-life-form-that-passes-on-knowledge-and-experience.aspx http://www.messagetoeagle.com/index.php/biology/53-evolution-news/61-next-step-in-evolution-a-technical-life-form-that-passes-on-knowledge-and-experience http://www.computescotland.com/building-our-evolutionary-successors-3630.php http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=84227&CultureCode=en

In relation to POV: the present wikipedia article contains no original work, but refers for all its statements to published and reviewed scientific publications. But maybe I do not understand the POV remark well enough to provide a proper answer?

Hope that a solution can be found for the COI topic, for which Gandalf61 has been so kind to suggested a potential direction for a solution that I hope to hear more from soon.

Kind regards, Jager008 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article is has issues, it is definitely notable and expanded enough to be worth keeping. Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete While at least one of the articles by him on it has been published in a very good peer-reviewed journal, "Analysing hierarchy in the organization of biological and physical systems" Jagers Op Akkerhuis, G.A.J.M. 2008 Biological Reviews 83 (1), pp. 1-12, Scopus shows a total of 3 citations combined for it and all other of his articles on the theory DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, indeed my publications on other subjects have been cited more frequently than those concerning the operator theory. This suggests the effect of publication year (my older papers being cited more frequently), but more importantly, researchers primarily choose references related to their own research topics, being generally more limited in scope. A broader scope makes a theory more notable (in principle) but less "citable". So citations may in such cases not be an optimal evaluation tool. As this involves your profession, I hope you can agree with this. Your talk-site was very helpful in indicating that “The inclusion criterion is being important enough to be in an encyclopedia, in whatever way determined”. It remains in this context valuable that the subject raised such broad public interest as indicated by the above links. I further suggest that it is of ecyclopedic importance that the operator theory finally offers simple solutions to long-standing sicentific questions such as the definition of life and the future of evolution. Finally, it may add to the notability of this theory that it was the subject of a second PhD. I look forward to your response. Jager008 (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2011 (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.