Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process physics Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Process_physics

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. The last "keep" opinion was discounted for the lack of an actual argument.  Sandstein  21:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Very fringe theory that has not received critical review nor notice. The sources it is based on are unpublished. So it's neither notable in the scientific community nor is it notable by means of recognition by any mainstream press. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete concur with nom.; no evidence of notability or wide scientific acceptance for this theory. JJL (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems like non-notable theory. Chimeric Glider (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — No evidence of notability. macy^talk 02:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, uses unpublished papers. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick search soon turned up enough sources to establish that this theory is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend searching for "process physics" cahill, rather than process physics cahill, since using quotations gives more specific results. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you might better explain is why these specific results by multiple independent authors do not establish notability. My impression is that this topic has made more impression upon philosophers than upon physicists. But this is fine since Wikipedia covers all branches of knowledge. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are by Cahill. The only mention in "Exploring Randomness" is in a footnote on page 27, with no mention of "process physics" in the main text. The section in Probabilistic Treatment of Gauge Theories is written by Cahill, in Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and Experience Cahill is only again only mentioned in a citation and his "process physics" is not a topic discussed specifically in the book. The only one of these that discussed Cahill's work specifically is in the philosophy book Whitehead's Pancreativism: The Basics. This one book that briefly discusses the topic is not enough to establish this approach to "fundamental physics" as a notable scientific theory. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete This article needs to be cleaned up and referenced, not deleted. Per TimVickers and Gnixon, the references are lacking to show notability. ABlake (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looking at the publications in reliable sources on this topic, the core references seem to be:

• Process physics: modelling reality as self-organising information Author: Cahill, R.T.; Klinger, C.M.; Kitto, K. Source: Physicist|Physicist Volume: vol.37, no.6 Pages: 191-5 Published: Nov.-Dec. 2000

• Process physics: Inertia, gravity and the quantum Author: Cahill, RT Source: GENERAL RELATIVITY AND GRAVITATION Volume: 34 Issue: 10 Pages: 1637-1656 Published: OCT 2002 Article Number: UNSP pp576-378757-06 Article Number: UNSP pp576-378757-06.

However ISI web of knowledge shows one citation of the 2000 journal article, and this was by the 2002 article - which was written by the same author. The 2002 article has not been cited by any other journal articles. Looking at other sources that turn up on Google scholar (search), most of these seem to be preprints and most of these are self-citations by the same author. I think this fails notability since it does not have multiple citations by other sources independent of the author. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do have multiple references to sources independent of the author as shown by my search above. Your own searches seem too narrow. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After a cursory look, I would agree with Tim. In an arxiv search on the author, I don't see any publications in journals where one would expect to find important work on quantum/GR stuff. (There are publications in "Progress in Physics," "Infinite Energy," and "Apeiron.") I doubt this theory is notable enough to merit keeping the article. Gnixon (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, this is odd. I still can't find a publication by Cahill in any notable physics journal, yet he is a professor of physics at Flinders University, the ~10th-ranked (of 40) Australian university. He appears to be the "coordinator" of the physics graduate program. What am I missing? Gnixon (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Try this. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, yeah. I've heard legends of ages past when there was no arxiv.  :) (I even know a confused wikipedian who published then.) Thanks, SA. My opinion about the article is unchanged. Gnixon (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Process philosophy. Although I agree that physics hardly needs another rationalistic, system-building philosophy such as Proccess physics, which is derivative of Process philosophy, per Colonel Warden, I believe there is enough sources to assert notability. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I could support a merge to process philosophy, since although this certainly isn't notable in itself, if it is an outgrowth of a more notable topic it could be mentioned in the main article on that area. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is not currently notable as a physics theory, nor has it apparently had any appreciable impact in the non-academic world. The existence of a criticism page gave momentary hope, but I do not find it sufficient. I would not be opposed to a mention at Process philosophy (subject to the judgment of people who know more about formal philosophy) or at a page devoted to universe-as-information-theory or whatever that school is called. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Process physics is self-evidently notable (ooh what a controversial statement on wikipedia!). Danwills (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you could add some sources to the article to support that opinion. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2008 (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.