Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthquake sensitive

The purpose of the DRV is not to restore the article, but re-open the discussion in order to clarify whether the topic is non-notable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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. There's general agreement that not only is this in fact, er, unscientific crap, but more importantly that it's probably non-notable unscientific crap. However, most contributors express a preference that this be described somewhere, briefly, just so that we can cover the fact that this is something some people believe in. This can be editorially resolved with editing and a redirect or disambiguation to wherever the topic ends up at; and if needed for mergers the history can also be restored.  Sandstein  20:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake sensitive

Earthquake sensitive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unscientific crap. NE Ent 03:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - I wrote this article a few years ago, and I have no qualms with its deletion. Per WP:NFRINGE, "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" - having written the article myself, I can testify that this article does not meet this criterion. ceranthor 03:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per article creator. Speedy deletion G7 cannot apply in this situation because too many other editors have edited this article. sst✈ 05:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I have heard of this and it seems to be a topic that people might want to know about. Better to have a neutral, objective article here than not.Borock (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternative, probably better, is suggested below. Borock (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Mostly Delete (i.e.: revise) per NE Ent ("[U]nscientific crap"), ceranthor (fringe), and the other issues I tagged (discussion at Talk:Earthquake_sensitive#Multiple issues (tagged)).

Although I would keep (per Borock) – call it "mostly delete" – provided that, in line with WP:DUE, it's only a short stub that clearly and definitely explains that it is pseudoscience, with no scientific credibility, and entirely unproven. Anyone willing to accept this as an alternative to full deletion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

An article on something that's not notable saying it's not notable? Deleting would be better / simpler. NE Ent 02:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a full article, just a stub. Mere absence suggests something overlooked, an omission, which leaves the readers uninformed, and invites remedy by editors only vaguely informed on the topic. A stub saying what the term signifies, where it comes from, and that it is pseudoscience, not to be taken seriously, informs the reader. And informs any well-meaning but under-informed editors. It allows for very, very, very small, but non-zero, notability. I was going to make it so in a week or two, but got pre-empted by this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete – We need to steer clear of anything related to Jim Berkland. Dawnseeker2000 23:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This thing is a fraud, but if he is a notable fraud, we need to cover it. Tigraan (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Precognition, or maybe to Clairvoyance, possibly adding a short mention there (current sourcing warrants it). The only question, really, is notability, and I could not find any significant RS on the internet, but that's possibly because search results are swamped with "earthquake sensitive" websites. Tigraan (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Great Idea!!!Borock (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Precognition is the one. I have added half a sentence there with the one good secondary source from this article. Borock (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. NE Ent 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am no aware that anyone claims any paranormal basis for this, so any connection with precognition would be to re-interpret it.

There are reliable sources regarding the more inclusive topic of possible animal sensitivity to earthquakes, and it's a bust. (See Earthquake prediction#Animal behavior, which is possibly all the coverage WP needs to give that topic.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, none has ever claimed paranormal powers by stating they are paranormal. But "earthquake sensitives" do not give any explanation for their "gift", or give an explanation that science does not validate, so that is pretty much the definition of "paranormal". As physical symptoms are claimed, it is not ESP in the strict sense, but one is left to wonder how the symptoms occurred.

This being said, as animal sensitivity is indeed a thing there might be a case for a DAB page, one link for precognition and one for Earthquake prediction#Animal behavior. I am under the impression that the term "earthquake sensitive" refers almost exclusively to the ability to predict eartquakes well in advance, though, and not just feeling the fastest-going waves. Tigraan (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction might be the better place to redirect. It's really more the topic of the article, rather than a general supernatural ability to predict the future. Borock (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A simple redirect to EP fails to inform readers that this is a disproved pseudo-scientific claim, and fails to inform editors that the lack of an article is for reasons of notability, not neglect. I think there really needs to be definite statement in this regard, and am considering revising my "delete".

Tigraan, the article does speculate on possible objective causes (piezoelectric effect and radon), bringing it within scientific purview. You are right about prediction being "well in advance", prediction being useful only if there is enough warning to do something. The "predictions" claimed here are more like postdictions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether "sensitives" claim to know the thing in advance (say, dream of it the night before) or a little after it started. I was under the impression that it was the former for most or the most famous of them, see for instance Jim_Berkland#Methodology. If not, my proposed redirection is indeed incorrect.

The claimed "possible objective causes" are more science-y than ghosts, but I do not see how that in itself would make improper to redirect to precognition (since they are still unscientific in essence). Houdini presented his famous levitation trick in a lab coat while claiming to have discovered a new property of ether, but it was still a magic act (= an entertaining act displaying seemingly impossible phenomena by secret means), not "fringe science". Tigraan (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Even better is the distinction between magicians and "psychics": same tricks, but magicians own up that it's just illusion, while psychics claim they have special powers. With Houdini I think any thing he said about the ether was just part of the patter, and there was no serious claim of being scientific. Berkland is a different case. As far as I know his claim is not for psychic abilities, but for an objective - i.e., scientifically amenable - basis for actually predicting earthquakes. That others (e.g., Clarisa Bernhardt) claim a psychic basis for predicting earthquakes muddles the issue here. But I believe there is an argument (at least implicitly) that a sensitivity to earthquake precursors provides a scientific explanation for what has been attributed as "psychic". (Which is still bunk, but less obviously so.) So while the essential matter here is a claim to foretell the future, it is not properly precognition (in the common sense of that term) in that psychic ability is not being alleged. The allegation is of an objective basis, amenable to scientific study. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you suggest that precognition lies in the domain of "I have magic powers", while ES is claimed to work through some physical phenomena, hence the two should not be mixed.

First of all, precognition has been "scientifically" claimed, but more fundamentally I do not see how you set the line between the science-y and the non-science-y claims. Is any explanation based on (say) piezoelectricity automatically "within the scientific purview"? Even when the claim is that leprechauns are telepathically sending instructions in Morse code into my quartz watch (but only when witnesses are not looking)? I can point to any number of modern witch-doctors that claim they heal via "magnetism" and "wavelength projection", does that make their claims "fringe science" rather than "magic"?

Houdini is an illusionist, not a fringe scientist, because he uses secret techniques for entertainment, and he would be one even if he had stood by his bogus explanation after the show (as long as he only displays his talents in an "entertainment" context). Homeopaths are fringe scientists, because they are organised like scientists (journal articles, lab testing, etc.), even though their claims have as little supporting evidence and plausibility as the existence of ghosts. Eartquake sensitives claims prediction abilities, like psychics, via methods unvalidated yet, like psychics, and entrap their followers in a "victim of a conspiracy" mindset, like psychics. They do not publish studies in the Journal of Earthquake Sensitivity, do not hold conferences to discuss their findings.  Looks like a duck to me (even though Berkland was a geologist). Tigraan (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal to revise: As I have stated above, I think there really needs to be some kind of treatment here, as the term has some currency (amounting to quasi-notability). Therfore I propose that the deletion process be put on hold while I do a major revision, and then in a week or so we can review the revision to see if it can survive deletion. Is there consenus for me to proceed with this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree as a corrolary of "AfD is not cleanup". Now that the topic is at AfD, we should decide what to do with it (article, redirect, delete, etc.) even though the decision need not be enforced immediately. Tigraan (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your "etc." properly includes revision. Note the language at WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, particularly: if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article." We are a little tangled up here because the AfD got in before any discussion of revision. Proceeding straight to execution (ah, of course I mean decision) rather precludes salvaging anything. And not considering possible revision is a suboptimal outcome. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Revise later" is the same as "keep" in view of WP:TIND. AfD is not cleanup. (see below, too) Tigraan (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

If you wanna revise it, revise it. Even if the consensus here is to delete, there's nothing to preclude an editor from creating a well-sourced article on the subject. NE Ent 00:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My reluctance in proceeding is, in part, that I would be blanking most of the article, which might be deemed as approaching the blanking prohibited at WP:EDITATAFD. Also, I am disinclined to put much work into this if deletion is considered inevitable. I could put up some proposed text, but I am not going to spend any time doing the citation details unless I have some reassurance it won't be time and effort wasted. As yet I am not encouraged to proceed. Could we have a conclusion that the apparent consensus for deletion applies to the article's current form, but that it will be reassessed upon substantial revision? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I am disinclined to put much work into this if deletion is considered inevitable. Precisely why, although revision is indeed possible, the pragmatic option IMO is to wait a keep or no consensus before putting in the heavy work. There is no "article under its current form" clause in the process of deletion (except WP:TNT, but that is an essay and it does not apply anyways) - either it deserves an article or it doesn't, regardless of its present state. And the decision process (even if it ends up in "no consensus") should not be postponed at a later date even if someone is working on the article (as a corollary of WP:NEGLECT).

The reasons for my redirect (≈delete) !vote are the lack of RS citing ES as a notable topic, and FWIW, I think the current article is fine in its writing except maybe for some WP:UNDUE concerns in the last section (which could give the reader "evidence" that predictions work). If you have sources for notability, please bring them forward, but otherwise, the same causes would have the same effects. Tigraan (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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.