This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.
This thread was made more difficult than normal to sort out by the movement of comments and the multiplication of relevant discussions on several different talk pages. I think I finally found all the relevant facts and comments. Taken together:
I count 12 clear "delete" votes in this discussion, 7 "keep as is" votes (but four of them have to be discounted as anonymous or very new users), 2 explicit "keep only if rewritten", 1 "abstain" and 1 that was too ambiguous to call. In addition, 4 users took the time to separately endorse the "Sandbox" version.
My own investigation is confirming the original allegation that the theory remains "original research" at this time. It has not met Wikipedia's standard of verified external sourcing. A great number of web-based links were provided and were dutifully researched by several Wikipedians. The results were ambiguous at best. Two of the people who reviewed the links concluded that they actually worked against the author's claims.
The original author has already expressed his dissatisfaction with the Sandbox version and has created a Sandbox2 version. This makes it seem less likely that it will be possible to keep a balanced and neutral article on this topic. My conclusion here is tempered by the author's behavior during this discussion. While diligent in the defense of his article, he has remained polite and fact-based. The dispute is only an interpretation of Wikipedia policy on the standards for inclusion of an article topic.
I am going to call this one as a "delete" as original research. The article in full probably should not be re-created until it the theory has been independently published in accordance with the "no original research" guidelines or until it has reached a level of notoriety equivalent to some of the other pseudo-science theories mentioned below.
After deletion, I am going to move the sandbox version to the main article space. Noting the controversy, however, I am going to immediately tag it as a procedural nomination to VfD so that a separate discussion and decision can be made on that version. Rossami(talk) 23:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
See discussion on its talk page. This is an article by User:RayTomes about an unpublished theory created by Ray Tomes, with references to ray.tomes.biz, and controversional claims answered with "I, Ray Tomes, say so." Some users have been trying to fix it, but I think allowing such transparent original research as this would undermine the policy. DeleteGazpacho 05:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Changing my vote to abstain. Replacing with the contents of Harmonics Theory/Sandbox would probably keep Mr. Tomes quiet, but this doesn't seem to be a very Notable entry. --Christopher Thomas 19:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Having trouble duplicating the alleged number of external references for the article, which would indeed suggest non-Notability. Going to poke at this a bit more before changing my vote. --Christopher Thomas 07:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Can you reproduce the list of references somewhere easy to link to? I am in favor of deletion if non-notable. All those smaller articles should be folded into the main article regardless. - Omegatron 13:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
That's the problem - I _haven't_ been able to reproduce the list of references. Mr. Tomes claimed several hundred links to his site from people who weren't him, but the first several pages of searching for "harmonics theory" and "ray tomes" on google contains only material he produced. --Christopher Thomas 15:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Update - searching for "ray tomes" and "cycles" gives mostly RT's work, but a handful of other references to it. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Cycles-Harmonics-Universe.htm seems to be a similar write-up by a different author that cites Mr. Tomes' work. Other references I've dug up so far are mostly newsgroup posts and the like. So, still not looking Notable. I'm trying to prod the vocal supporters in the Talk:Harmonics Theory page into digging up the bona fide references they say exist and posting them here, but no response so far. --Christopher Thomas 19:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
List of links moved to talk page. Radiant_* 08:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. Non-notable crank, original research. Quale 06:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete - original research - also looks like pseudo science to me --JiFish 11:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Can you say "harmonic analysis"? Looks like personal "research". — RJH 15:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete The lack of actual mathematical derivations makes it seem less credible to me. (I like the rewrite at Harmonics Theory/Sandbox and would be happy to see that stay.) I found some external "Harmonics Theory" information but these links (PDF article and Tutorial Presentation) look like unrealated research where they use the phrase "harmonics theory" in place of "harmonic analysis" rather than as a theory of the nature of the universe. Starfoxy 17:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the phrase occurs most commonly for my theory, but also quite commonly for general theory of harmonics of a regular type, and also some for an astrological meaning (which has an "indigo ray" with it - that is not this Ray!). I fail to see how you can criticise a lack of mathematics when I put a simple program to show the exact logic of the calculation. And PRF Brown has confirmed that my calculations are correct and added some additional note. Ray Tomes 04:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete harmonically. Original research, seems unverifiable (except vanity) from verification attempts reported above. Barno 18:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Replace harmonically with /Sandbox version. Good NPOV that nonetheless is close to a debunking. Barno 00:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite, then keep - Seems notable enough for an NPOV summary. I think the "sandbox" version will be good. - Omegatron 19:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be original research. --Carnildo 20:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Crankery, original research, vanity. Take your pick.--Heathcliff 22:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite, then keep. Tomes does have some mad as a wifflebat interesting theories, but it seems that - as long as they are labelled as that, there's no harm in them being here. ISTR that that strange theory about everything being a cube has an article in Wikipedia, and Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken certainly do. BTW, is there any connection between Tomes's theories and Bruce Cathie's earlier (equally, erm, interesting) Harmonics Theory about UFOs? Grutness...wha? 04:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no connection with Bruce Cathie, but he does live in the same city :-) Although his UFO grid does have harmonic 2880 around the earth, which is a strong harmonic in harmonics theory. However that side of harmonics theory is not in dispute (I think) as it has been found by PRF Brown to be a known mathematical equation. But Cathie uses the word "harmonic" to sometimes mean a numerological one, whereas my meaning is always mathematical/musical/physical. Ray Tomes 04:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the information (from the horse's mouth, no less!). Grutness...wha?
Time Cube has an article not on its scientific merits, but because it's a significant part of internet culture. Velikovsky and von Däniken are both well-known, widely-published authors, and von Däniken also has a theme park and a television show. Does this guy meet any of those criteria? --Carnildo 06:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Gee thanks! Well Archimedes Plutonium has tried to steal my theory! But I take your point - to the ignorant the difference may not be clear. My name doesn't start with a V. And serious scientists have invited me to give seminars at prestigous places such as Russian Acadamy of Science in Pushchino. Ray Tomes 04:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Well no, he doesn't, but I'm sure you knew the answer. Quale 09:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep the rewrite. The sandbox version is very useful. Megan1967 05:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I am still not really convinced about the notability issue ; it's all very hand-waving at the moment. --Zaphod Beeblebrox 13:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Regardless of any application to cosmology, harmonics theory deserves to be in an encyclopaedia. It concerns hard facts that may be little known at present but may turn out to be the missing link in explaining many phenomena. Caroline Thompson 20:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The harmonic theory could open up a new paradigm. True out of box thinking is rare to find.
Delete all original research. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
People are still writing "original research". According to the wikipedia:Original_research article: 'Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication;'
The people that are putting this have been badly informed by Gazpacho. He makes a statement that is totally untrue without first checking the facts. I think that all these votes (based on original research) should be discounted. I have published papers on harmonics theory with the Foundations for the Study of Cycles conference proceedings and from a conference proceedings run jointly with University (Nevada?) and Apeiron journal. These are all reputable organisations. Ray Tomes 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Some votes appear to have been moved to the talk page. While arguably some of them qualify as sock puppets, my understanding was that actual votes (vs. commentary) were still supposed to be on this page. --Christopher Thomas 21:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
There are no votes on the talk page. I have looked for deletion of votes but can find none. However I agree that some votes have gone. I have records and will come back with a list of what is gone. Ray Tomes 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Three votes have been removed by someone. They were PRF Brown keep, RayTomes keep, Hazelhurst keep/cleanup. I am trying to work out now who did it. Ray Tomes 03:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
The three vote were removed by Radiant's first edit onthe 20th when he (re)moved discussion and links to talk page. They need to be put back! Ray Tomes 04:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I am inserting the deleted votes here. I have retained a little text with each.
It is unreasonable to have reasons by delete votes and not by keep votes. Allow us at least a voice please. I note also that Radiance removed three keep votes and voted delete. This might have been an accident as his removal of large text was reasonable action. However one would be excussed for being very suspicious. Ray Tomes 04:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. User:PRF Brown The Harmonics Theory has its place in an encyclopaedic work of this nature. Mathematically, it is supported by the theory associated with the number of ordered factorizations of natural numbers. See specifically the Integer "core" sequence number A074206. Here is an independent page which provides a structural environment for the HT:
- Additionally, I have independently confirmed some of the
- computational analysis upon which the exposition of the
- HT rests, and the results of this independent computational
- analysis is here:
Keep. ...discussion moved to talk pages
Ray Tomes 08:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup Firstly i should say that I have known Ray Tomes (on the internet) for past 7 years and I have found him to be a polite and genuine 'alternative' theorist with interesting ideas. I do not agree with everything he writes, but think that Harmonics is an important subject that should be investigated and published on Wikipedia. ... discussion moved to talk page
This is my rambling few cents worth on why i think the article deserves to be kept, but should be cleaned up to have the more speculative areas removed.
Haselhurst 10:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - original research. Second choice for the case deletion doesn't get consensus: Delete the sister pages and replace main page with a NPOV rewrite. --Pjacobi 22:16, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
The same page helpfully defines "reputable publication": "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications."
Conference proceedings are typically not peer-reviewed.
As far as I can determine, neither the original work, nor explicit tests of the work, or support or refutation of the work have been "published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet". Usenet postings and links on somebody's web site are not sufficient. It doesn't matter if Harmonics Theory is the greatest thing since sliced bread; it simply doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. The "/Sandbox" article may be salvagable - I'll have to look at it some more before voting, though.
Dcfleck, I request that you look at Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 which has incorporated a lot more wikifying and also has additional references etc. The emphasis has also been changed to show that the theory arose out of cycles studies. Unfortunately there are no peer-review journals in cycles studies, so FSC proceedings and cycles magazine are the best available. The FSC was the most reputable organisation in the field. As far as it relates to physics and cosmology the problems of new ideas in peer-review journals has been raised by a nobel prizewinner, Josephson, as being almost insurmounrable. Ray Tomes 02:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Please note: the following DOES NOT refer to the main article.
What are the rules on this discussion closing? It seems to have run its course. I suggest that the best thing now is to remove the original pages and do a page that follows the rules as far as possible. I would prefer that to be done by someone other than Christopher (no offence intended, I appreciate your efforts, but several things I think reflect your POV) making changes to the sandbox2 article, because there are some serious errors of fact in the sandbox version and some important extra references in the sandbox2 article, I am happy to accept your judgement on NPOV, but would like to see the correct facts retained (as regards e.g. Tifft, Arp etc). Ray Tomes 06:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
What will happen is that one of the Wikipedia administrators will review the votes and take action as they see fit based on what people here have suggested (which will either be "delete" or "replace with NPOV rewrite", depending on how many of the "keep" votes they consider valid). This is supposed to happen a week after initial listing on VfD, but took about two weeks the last time I was involved in a VfD. Patience is key. --Christopher Thomas 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep: No theory is ever complete. The expectations of too many is that theories need somehow to be legit before they should have space in the public domain. Nothing could be further from the truth. Peer review journals have been proven to not perform in the publics interest. They along with their organizations get caught in the rightness of their dogma and let nothing challenging in. It takes a revolution to displace them. In the meantime it takes spaces like this to communicate ideas toward individuals of different minds to come up with concepts to replace wholesale the prison yards of dogma. It is unlikely that any single subject will make the difference. But what will make the difference is someone that just happens to wander inside this space and with a few other ideas makes a whole new idea of the ages. That will not happen if you take that opportunity away from them. Doing so is almost always a bad idea. Why take the chance?
James Conway May 29 2005.
"The expectations of too many is that theories need somehow to be legit before they should have space in the public domain." Yes, that is the expectation. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote someones' pet theory for them. --Dcfleck 13:28, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.