Since this discussion is a bit much for an AfD intro, I moved it to this page --ScienceApologist 15:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd better correct some of the misleading statements above. This is actually the third attempt to delete the article:

• 1. To suggest there is a conflict of interest, is to suggest the same when ScienceApologist, a proponent of mainstream theories, edits mainstream articles. This has nothing to do with the notability of the article, but another desperate attempt to smear certain editors.
• 2a. There are more than two people who publish articles on the Electric Universe. This is easy to show on the Thunderbolts Web site, which describes itself as "Exploring the Electric Universe"[1], and which includes a list of Web site contributors,[2] (8 people), plus other contributors such as C.J. Ransom, Don Scott, and Rens van der Sluijs).

• Comment -- none of those contributors rises to the level of notability, and since they are all only contributing through the publications of Scott and Thornhill, we have only the attribution of those two fellows to go on. --ScienceApologist 15:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b. Articles on the Electric Universe have appeared in the journal Kronos, SIS C&C Review, Aeon. There is also Don Scott's book, Electric Sky, and Wal Thornhill and David Talbott's book, "The Electric Universe".

• Comment -- As was said in the nomination, these are published in vanity presses. The journals referenced are actually non-notable, non-peer reviewed vanity presses that do not conform to reliable sources.

• 2c. Original research refers to information that is not verifiable (ie. a Wiki editor's only ideas). ScienceApologist should know this.

• Comment -- It is the contention of this nomination that the subject is not verified by reliable sources. --ScienceApologist 15:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 2d. Aspects of the Electric Universe have indeed been peer reviewed. The importance of cosmic electricity, appears for example, in Alfvén's "Electric currents in cosmic plasmas"[3], and Peratt's "The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma"[4], and Ip's "The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails"[5]. ScienceApologist seeks to distance the Electric Universe from these peer reviewed sources, in order to demonstrate that the subject is baseless.

• Comment -- Again, this is an example of incorrectly attributing sources for EU that are actually to other ideas. --ScienceApologist 15:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 3. This is ScienceApologist's personal point of view, and is baseless.
• 4. ScienceApologist sees subjects like the Electric Universe and the Plasma Universe, as mutually exclusive. this view is baseless.

• Comment -- no reliable/independent source connects the two. Advocates of plasma cosmology, such as Lerner, have actually distanced themselves from "Velikovskian fantasies". --ScienceApologist 15:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 5. Recognition from the mainstream is not a requirement for notability. What ScienceApologist means is that he personally does not consider the subject notable, and he's entitled to that view. --Iantresman 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you can't even leave my comments in tact. --Iantresman 15:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved these comments from the Vote page to here, where they belong. -- Kesh 00:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't even have the courtesy to leave my comments in place. This IS the page for discussion.
• And what a shame that ScienceApologist felt it necessary to post this AfD on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (science) page, an article that ScienceApologist has contributed to extensively,[6]. What was that about conflict of interest? --Iantresman 15:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and he even calls it a 'test case', obviously signifying that recent changes to Wiki standards are being tested here, changes made specifically to allow for more rigorous removal of content that doesn't follow orthodox views. -Ionized 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test cases in WP:SCI are used to learn about community opinion in science discussions that can be used to frame notability criteria, not to influence the debate itself. ~ trialsanderrors 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrased response since it appears that my original response was removed from the database- "Since this is a test case, then the article will not really be deleted? You state that test cases are used to learn about community opinion that can be used to frame criteria, not to influence the debate itself. Hence this is simply a blind test case, there is no intention to actually delete the article, data is simply being conducted by leading us to assume this is a real vote?" -Ionized 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) You may want to read up on legal test cases. A good example is the Scopes Trial. Being a test case means that someone is going to court precisely to see if the law involved can be upheld or must be thrown out. In this instance, the article is a test case for the new proposed policy. If it is succesful, the article would be deleted. If not, it shows the policy is not ready for full use yet and needs revised or abandoned. -- Kesh 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification, that makes better sense. As for edit conflict, I really can't say what happened, as I saw my comment there later in the night when I came back to look for replies. Regardless, it doesn't matter, and thanks for the clarification. -Ionized 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. except that, hmm, that makes it sound like if it is not successful, more changes would be made to the policy until it IS successful, hence making this look even more like a clear case of censorship above anything else. I'll consult a certain family member who teaches law, he will be able help clear up what this means for me. Thanks for the response still. -Ionized 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really censorship. Your family member can probably explain, sometimes laws get written, tested, thrown out, rewritten, etc. several times before either A) a version that's good stands up and becomes the standard law, or B) people get tired of trying, give up and leave the status quo. That may be the same in this case: if it fails, gets rewritten, tried again, fails, eventually folks may just decide it's a bad idea and stop. That's why there are test cases, to see if it's worth pursuing further or letting it drop. -- Kesh 06:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something very interesting appears to have happened, I replied to the comment left by Trialsanderrors last night, yet the reply is no longer here, and in fact no longer shows up in the page history OR my contribution history. How is that possible? I KNOW I hit the Save Page button, as I later in the night went back to see if another reply had been made to my statement and what I submitted was definitely still there. Something appears very fishy here, and this is not the first time I've seen some of my contributions simply disappear from wikipedia with no sign of history. Oh well, as usual, there is nothing I can do to even prove that I left a message, since the history appears to have been altered and removed from the database. Since it is pointless to point fingers and complain, I simply will paraphrase what I had typed: "Since this is a test case, then the article will not really be deleted? You state that test cases are used to learn about community opinion that can be used to frame criteria, not to influence the debate itself. Hence this is simply a blind test case, there is no intention to actually delete the article, data is simply being conducted by leading us to assume this is a real vote?" That is pretty much the gist of what I had typed, and I will now add it beneath the comment that I was replying to, just above. -Ionized 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible you hit the Preview button rather than the Save button, or that there was an Edit Conflict which didn't get resolved. However, it's extremely unlikely that any such comment was removed. I've read several of the admin boards for a few weeks now and it's apparently quite difficult to remove data from the wiki entirely [i]because[/i] the History keeps track of every edit, move and revision. Such a change requires very precise editing of the database that is only performed when an individual requests all their User information be removed from the database for privacy concerns. -- Kesh 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is found on [7] as "Many votes", at last count 37. I didn't know so many people have an interest in not keeping this... ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's for two reasons:

1. Because it is a test case for a new notability policy WP:SCI
2. Since the article has been around for years and having survived two previous AfD attempts, I let the relevant WikiProjects (Physics, Astronomy, Pseudoscience, and Rational Skepticism) know about this particular AfD discussion.

--ScienceApologist 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this article has already been deleted by an overwhelming majority, I post the following link only for the purposes of future clarification: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscienceTranscript.htm

I am doubtful whether or not the implicit defintion of the term "psuedoscience," as it has appeared (mostly without definition) in these discussions, is ultimately defensible. I urge anyone interested in the matter to read Lakatos' enlightening article. It will be interesting indeed to see how the electric universe proponents fare over the coming years. --BenJonson 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]