Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydridic Earth theory

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. Despite Zgonnik references, I don't see editors (except Praemonitus) convinced on this article being notable. Deleting it currently; if any user wishes it to be userfied, will accede. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 08:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hydridic Earth theory

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

No reliable sources since 2008. FRINGE theory not widely accepted in scientific community. `a5b (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Larin is listed in fringe science list: "Vladimir N. Larin Hydridic Earth " and relisted in "Hydridic+Earth The Worldwide list of dissidents scientists page 838. `a5b (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: there is another theory about hydrogen in earth core: Iron-hydrogen_alloy#Occurrence_in_the_Earth.27s_core`a5b (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
It is fringe, but Lochie is not accepted in the scientific community either, and no one will be deleting that article for being fringe. Fringe theories abound in the earth sciences because of Creationism, and many of these will be notable, such as, I am sure there is an article on Young Earth theory. And these are promoted by fringe scientists, like Michael Behe, but there articles will not be deleted because they are fringe theories. More to the point, this particular fringe theory appears to not be notable; or, it wasn't until Wikipdia published an article on it that got mirrored all over cyberspace. Ouch. I hope you are checking the contributor's other offerings to the 'pedia. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable fringe theory that, based on my own Google searches, has never received even a single word of mention in mainstream reliable independent sources, never mind anything resembling significant coverage. As IP mentions above, some fringe theories are notable, but this one is far from it. Absolutely nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is verifiable; hydrogen-future.com has some books on the topic. But I could only find primary resources--no independent discussions of this theory from reliable sources could be found, at least online. There is one independent source quoted in the article, but it does not seem to be a reliable source. Unless independent in-depth reliable sources can be found, this topic fails general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG and should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the list of works, citing this theory. Please note, that some works are based on the Hydridic Earth Theory:

1) Eneev, T. M., & Kozlov, N. N. (1981). A model of the accumulation process in the formation of planetary systems. I. Numerical experiments. Solar System Research, 15(2), 59–70. Retrieved from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981AVest..15...80E

2) Fedonkin, M. A. (2009). Eukaryotization of the early biosphere: A biogeochemical aspect. Geochemistry International, 47(13), 1265–1333. doi:10.1134/S0016702909130011

3) Gilat, A. L., & Vol, A. (2012). Degassing of primordial hydrogen and helium as the major energy source for internal terrestrial processes. Geoscience Frontiers, 3(6), 911–921. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2012.03.009

4) Gilat, A. L., & Vol, A. (2005). Primordial hydrogen-helium degassing , an overlooked major energy source for internal terrestrial processes. HAIT Journal of Science and Engineering B, 2(1-2), 125–167. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Primordial+hydrogen-helium+degassing,+an+overlooked+major+energy+source+for+internal+terrestrial+processes#0

5) Hunt, C. W. (1996). Metal orefields and petroleum deposits resulting from silane and hydrocarbon emanations through crystalline terranes. Theophrastus contributions to advanced studies in geology (Vol. 1). Athens, Greece.

6) Pavlenkova, N. I. (2009). Nature of particular structure position of the Antarctica. Ukrainian Аntarctic Journal, 8, 108–113. Retrieved from http://www.uac.gov.ua/en/uaj8/

7) Syvorotkin, V. L. (2010). Hydrogen degassing of the Earth: Natural disasters and the biosphere. Man and the Geosphere (pp. 307–347). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Retrieved from http://iflorinsky.narod.ru/mg-10.htm

8) Walshe, J. L., Hobbs, B., Ord, A., Regenauer-Lieb, K., & Barmicoat, A. (2005). Mineral systems, hydridic fluids, the Earth’s core, mass extinction events and related phenomena. Mineral Deposit Research: Meeting the Global Challenge (pp. 65–68). Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007%2F3-540-27946-6_17

I can add 15 more in Russian language. Hope, this is enough to leave the article. Note also, that most of articles were published after 2005, showing the increasing interest to this theory during last years. Zgonnik (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zgonnik, some of articles listed by you only cite Larin's theory. Is there some articles describing his theory but not written by him or his followers, I mean describing from a critical point of view `a5b (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're not actually citing the theory, just the article, in passing, and just a specific part of it, the ones I read. I may be wrong about the notability, but I can't tell that from these articles. Do you have one, Russian would be okay, though not best, that actually discusses his theory,, as Af5 suggests? I would be glad to get it and read it. I also work with a petrologist who does primary cosmology research, and I can discuss the issue with him, if a good article arises; not to post this scientist's opinion, simply to gather whether or not to spend time researching. I am always concerned about a Wikipedia article that has the primary support of what appears to be a very limited purpose account. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be fringe, but it does indeed appear to receive some coverage in peer reviewed journals. Unfortunately, many of the references are behind pay walls. But I'm not convinced it's non-notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Praemonitus (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a little investigation through the scientific databases and found almost nothing just mentioning of this "theory". It is so evidently fringe, so nobody even bothers to criticize it. --RedAndr (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did a large investigation through the scientific databases and found many works mentioning this theory (see above). It is so unbelievably idfferent from the mainstream and so unevidently to criticize it, so nobody did this. Vladimir Larin defended his Doctor's dissertation in 1991. In the commission of opponents were "E. Milanovskiy", "D. Mineev" and "T. Eneev" - all prominent scientists, and all of them accepted Larin's work. Zgonnik (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I point out above, they are not actually mentioning the theory. If you can give me a single source, as I said above, that mentions the theory, rather than just cites some small portion of this one article, then I would be glad to read it. I also want to point out that a theory, if it is accepted by any group of scientists, will be the subject of numerous articles, not just mentioned in one, and never cited as that theory in others. We can't decide on Wikipedia that it is a theory; that's the job of others. We can report about theory once there is general agreement that there is one. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2013 (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.