Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Cyclic Multiverse Theory

Cyclic Multiverse Theory
This book is original research copied from the Wikipedia article of the same name, which is up for deletion there. Delete. Andrewmackinnon 15:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Original Research is not against Wikibooks policy... yet. -- LV (Dark Mark) 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Original Research has never been allowed on Wikibooks and has been used in the past as a justification for deletion. There has perhaps been a "cleanup" of Wikibooks policies that doesn't make it currently a codified enforced policy, except perhaps in this module.  The old "What Wikibooks is Not" page spelled this out much more clearly, but has since been heavily reworked.  --Rob Horning 23:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Andrewmacinnon, you should put   at the top of the page or book that you want to delete. Because you did not, I went and added one. It puts a message that the book/chapter/module might be deleted. Deletion policy explains it. --Kernigh 16:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * --Kmarinas86 17:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Now it's clear to me that no Original Research is acceptable. I see now.  I wasn't told that before I came to Wikipedia.
 * I appreciate new ideas, and this is an interesting one, but the "No Original Research" concept is mainly to act as a protection for us here. We are trying to become a forum for textbook writing, not a publishing area for scientific research or hypothesis.  There have been proposals for a new sister project to organize these efforts, and there have been a couple of different projects at Wikicities, including The Academic Publishing Wiki.  That particular web site is more along the lines of what you are trying to accomplish.  I hope that this content does end up on that wiki.  --Rob Horning 00:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Original Research is not against Wikibooks policy... yet. -- LV (Dark Mark) 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete --Kernigh 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete This page is original research, which is against policy. The auther should be given a final opportunity to transwiki, if desired, and then it should be deleted. I personally will give it 2 more days. --Whiteknight T C E 03:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Original Research is not against Wikibooks policy... yet. -- LV (Dark Mark) 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I put up a notice on the page that it will be deleted within 1 week, as per the concensus here. --Whiteknight T C E 18:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mikkalai 18:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe keep as Devil's advocate. Does anyone here actually know if this matertial all exists in journal articles?  NOR should apply only when the work does not yet exist in journal articles.  NOR should be not appled merely because the author of the journal articles is the main contributor.  In this case, we are far our on the fringe of theoretical physics, which runs the risk of self-aggrandizement, but I see nothing wrong with having a whole book on Theories of the Universe, or even just the fringe ones.  So, this content can be on wikibooks, but its POV to host it alone without competing fringe theoreis.  Anyway, my point is that this article is really violating NPOV, probably not NOR.  BTW, Speedy deletion is for vandalism, clear personal aggrandizement, etc. and almost invariably inappropriate for the NOR rule; just make sure the author can get it transwiki'd. - 81.97.155.10 10:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Original Research is not against Wikibooks policy... yet. -- LV (Dark Mark) 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Lord Voldemort is right. Every textbook has original research.  Without original research and bias by the authors, a textbook would be nothing more than an extensive encyclopedia article.  The advantage of Wikibooks over conventional textbooks is that we can all add our own bias to the information, hopefully balancing the content to make it universally equitable.  The problem we run into with the Cyclic Multiverse Theory is that nobody else knows anything about it and hence, cannot help edit the book.  Since there can be no balancing bias added, the book will always be the POV of user:Kmarinas86.  If we want to attract quality authors to Wikibooks and keep the ones we have, we must be honest about our reasons for proposing a book deletion.  Nobody is going to contribute to Wikibooks if they think the rules are up in the air—if they think their book could disappear at any time no matter how hard they try to follow Wikibook standards.  The truth is that Wikibooks is a community project and as such, all books must be open to editing by the community.  It necessarily follows that the content of all books must be consensual to the community.  As per the definition of consensus, that has nothing to do with a vote or any type of majority opinion, but with our tolerance level.  The bottom line is that all content at Wikibooks must be within the threshold of what all editors will tolerate.  We deleted the resource book for white supremacists, for example, only because we could not tolerate the content.  We blamed it on other factors, but we all know that our excuses were bullshit.  We simply didn't want that sort of content associated with our Internet community.  We have to be honest about tolerance level defining content because that is what's happening at Wikibooks—it's our unofficial policy.  If there are problems with the policy, we have to change it, not pretend it doesn't exist.  --Zephram Stark 17:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between research and original research. If I write a book about phyiscs and need to look up Maxwell's equations, thats research.  But its not original research.  If, on the other hand, I claim that Maxwell is wrong and write a book about why, thats primary research.  I'm doing investigation into new facts and posting my theories on them.  The problem with this on wikibooks is that its not verifiable-  we have neither the ability to or the expertise needed to test physics theories.  We end up with a bunch of books, 90% of which are utterly wrong, that noone can verify the contents of.  That hamstrings our mission-  if half the books cannot be verified, we as a site cannot be trusted.  Hence, no original research.  It has nothing to do with the content not being tolerated, it has to do with it not being verifiable.  And it definitely has nothing to do with the white power book and the reasons why it was delete.--Gabe Sechan 18:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a textbook, Wikibook or otherwise, that was free of primary research and bias by the author. The very act of tying two ideas together in a textbook is original research and POV.  Who's to say that those two ideas have anything to do with each other?  What source was cited for the idea that those two things belong in the same textbook?  I could open any textbook here and point out research that can be found no place else on Earth.  If I were to assert that pine trees are generally taller than pear trees, I would never be able to find a source for that, so does that mean I can't say it?  Of course I could say it, but only because enough people know the relative sizes of pine and pear trees.  It has nothing to do with it being original research.  The issue comes down to how accessible the book is for others to edit.  If we're only talking about stuff that's in the original author's head, nobody else can edit the book.  Thus, the responsibility befalls the original author to make the Wikibook he started inviting for other authors to edit.  This is how the policy is being implemented, so it might as well be stated that way too.  --Zephram Stark 23:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, original research has always been against policy. Its a specific exclusion in What is Wikibooks, and has been since well before I made my first edit here.  --Gabe Sechan 18:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it just says that No original research is allowed, but does not qualify that statement by stating what constitutes "original research". I have started trying to make a NOR policy page and it is located here. -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So long as your allowed to write about your own work *after* a real journal has printed the papers. - 130.88.123.188 22:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)