Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental cosmology

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental cosmology[edit]

The lead sentence of this article says, "Environmental cosmology is an attempt [...] as proposed by Ken McRitchie." This article is apparently WP:Vanity for Ken McRitche. The Rod (☎ Smith) 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research Gwernol 02:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not for original research. Amcfreely 02:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid having deletion votes rejected from a techinicality, note that the author has published a book on "environmental cosmology" and that a Wikipedia editor (either the author himself or someone claiming to be the author) has cited that book in the article, hence my WP:Vanity note. The Rod (☎ Smith) 03:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point, and this article is indeed WP:Vanity. Its also worth noting that Cognizance Books, publishers of Mr. Ritchie's book have only published one title - at least according to Google and Amazon - so this is likely a vanity press/personal publishing effort and so not notable. Gwernol 04:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:VANITY Royboy crashfan 05:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete as WP:VANITY I have read the rules on vanity and do not believe this is a vanity article. Other than identifying myself as the author of the book and the concept, this article explains technical details with no more further mention of the author. I can remove my name and the article will not lose anything at all. I don't think the same could be said for vanity articles. What the article (and the book) does do is try to reconcile two very differing points of view. It is critical of both sides and it accepts ideas from both sides that are consistent. Ken McRitchie 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we retain an "Environmental cosmology" article or disambiguation article, Ken McRitchie's name belongs in it, as he appears to be the originator and sole promoter of the unique meaning of the phrase as used in the article. Other uses of the phrase (i.e. the sum of the parts use from physics and that of Joseph Grange) appear to be completely different. The Rod (☎ Smith) 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. I'm going to ignore the vanity allegations for a moment because while it is bad form I'm not of the opinion that vanity is always a deletable offense. Besides in a way it is its own punishment; look at it this way: someone had to create an article about themselves or their work because nobody cared enough about them or their work enough to create a wikipedia article; while there are people out there that care enough about a topic to create BotCon. That has to sting a little... but back to WP:NEO. Searching Google I find quite a few references to Nature: An Environmental Cosmology (1997) by Joseph Grange, a book about the environment. In fact most of the returned results are for that book. The term is also used in relation to cosmology and inflationary theory [1]. The usage of the term in reference to the book and theories by Mr. McRitchie are from his own website, and the book listing on Amazon. I can't find any information that the term "Environmental cosmology" has been used to refer to McRitchie's theories by any reputable 3rd party source. If not deleted outright, this should disambiguate to an article on the book at Environmental Cosmology (book) (and other uses of the term) and just have a write up of the book rather than a full explanation of the theory... at least until it can be WP:V proved that these pseudo-scientific theories gain wider acceptance.--Isotope23 14:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not Delete~~ per WP:NEO. Although Joseph Grange has authored a book with Environmental Cosmology as the subtitle, I don't think his subtitle does very much to explain his philosophy, or even that it is some sort of philosophy, which is along the lines of Whitehead. You would have a difficult time determining that this book is about the environment or cosmology from reading it, so there is a certain ambiguity in the title that Grange has chosen. "Cosmology," as used in this Wikipedia article under discussion refers to the structure and space-time relationships of the universe, just as you would find in a dictionary definition. That the universe is an environment should be self-evident. There is nothing new here. The subtitle of the book Environmental Cosmology indicates that this is an examination of astrology using the approach of how astrology structures the space-time environment. I don't believe this is ambiguous or making up new words. After all, these are fairly ordinary ideas that have wide and enduring acceptance. The Wikipedia article is far from a full explanation of the complete theory, but just a summary of some of the more salient features, just as you'd find in many other Wikipedia articles on any subject. Astrology has often been described as pseudo-science, but that does not eliminate astrology from Wikipedia or from being accepted, so there is nothing special along that line that needs to be WP:V verified. Ken McRitchie 15:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second vote removed... please only vote once. Can you produce any evidence that the term "Environmental cosmology" is widely used for the theories expounded in your book by anyone other than yourself, or in reviews of the book, etc. If not then it is a neologism. Also, I'm not saying that pseudoscience is not appropriate for Wikipedia - there are tons of pseudoscience articles here - what I'm saying is that for this to be in any way notable as a theory it needs to be proven that this theory has gained wide exceptance... and the fact that it has gained wide acceptance needs to be WP:V by WP:RS sources.--Isotope23 16:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term and the concept of environmental cosmology are gaining a wider acceptance as more people read the book and reviews are written in publications. The term is not as new as it was two years ago, when it was first published. I suppose that being deleted from Wikipedia would bring some added notoriety if that happens, although I hope the article can stay. The article refers to numerous works and authors that have very wide acceptance. These works are incorporated into the ideas discussed in the book and the article. The only thing that is new is that these ideas are brought together, compared with each other, and compared with astrology, which itself is nothing new. The article and the book are basically a comparison of a simplified form of basic astrology (which is where the term "environmental cosmology" comes from), which has wide acceptance, with similar ideas in the social science, which also has wide acceptance. Critics of astrology are continually asking for theory and comparison with the social sciences. It would be a mistake to remove an article for which there is a demonstrable need and which is WP:V well-referenced with widely accepted and verifiable sources. Ken McRitchie 16:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A great way to support retention of the article in something close to its current form would be to reference a discussion of "environmental cosmology" from somewhere outside of your book. If not, references to a professional review of the book would at least merit the article's retention (as Isotope23 notes) at Environmental Cosmology (book) and a disambiguation page Environmental cosmology (disambiguation) could link to it. The Rod (☎ Smith) 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have several published reviews of the book. How is it possible to publish them as "discussion" without infringing on the rights of the reviewers? Ken McRitchie 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just summarize the reviews and cite the sources where they were published. If a review is in a book, use {{cite book}}. If it is on the web, use {{cite web}}. The Rod (☎ Smith) 19:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, and unlike Isotope I'm not going to ignore the vanity issue - I don't think anyone can write neutrally about themselves, and I don't think McRitche even tried. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the article you will see criticism of both the astrologers' and the critics' cherished beliefs. Obviously this does not allow me to speak for all astrologers or all critics, so I cannot call it "Defense of Astrology" or "The Delusions of Astrology." "The Common Ground between Astrology and the Social Sciences" does not identify anything in particular, even though this is my aim, so I've tried to identify that common ground based on its structure. The fact that other recent thinkers have alluded to the term environmental cosmology suggests that there is some currency to this term and it is not entirely new. In the article you will also see acknowledgement of the limitations of this common ground theory. I am aware of its problems. I did not come up with the idea for writing a theory of astrology myself, but it was suggested to me by a skeptical professor who saw a need for it. I understood that need and tried to fill it as best I know how. Ken McRitchie 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:03, 5 April 2006 (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.