User talk:Alfonzo Green/Wolpert-Sheldrake wager

verbal delted this page almost immediately after its creation. If this action occurs again without explanation, I will assume it is an act of vandalism, and the page will be restored.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is not vandalism, as it always requires the article to fulfill speedy deletion criteria (WP:CSD). Also, rarely is speedy deleting done by a single person - most often at least two people are involved: someone to nominate the article for deletion (mostly a normal editor) and someone to carry out the deletion (an admin), so it's not just some guy clicking away pages. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have renominated it for CSD. I've outlined the reasons on User talk:Alfonzo Green. Frmatt (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This article has no third party sources (all cited sources are by Sheldrake and/or Wolpert), therefore its redirection and/or deletion is perfectly justifiable under policy. This makes Alfonzo Green's nonsensical accusation of "vandalism" against Verbal a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wager is reported on New Scientist. This is a reliable third party source. I provide three sources: Wolpert, Sheldrake and the New Scientist article. Please stop deleting this article. This is an important wager reported in the scientific press. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not "third party". The New Scientist piece is by Sheldrake and Wolpert themselves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The piece was written by an unnamed New Scientist editor and includes a description of the wager as well as other important scientific wagers. It also includes statements by both of the scientists. Of course, if the page is deleted, Wikipedia readers cannot follow the link to the article in order to verify this for themselves. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG: the authorship is listed as "08 July 2009 by Lewis Wolpert and Rupert Sheldrake". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a section of a comments from the New Scientist page.[1]

...this sounds like nothing more than a publicity stunt for an author to sell more of his books---books that are a rehash and mis-statement of established science. It's already known that certain genetic defects cause certain abnormalities. Inserting and deleting genes in experimental organisms is how their function is determined. Is the author (I already don't bother to remember his name) going to claim credit for "predicting" this, Buckminster Fuller- or H.G. Wells-wannabe style? I've learned to mistrust authors, especially futurists, whose only claim to fame is from hyping things up Bermuda triangle-style. I'm sorry but his material is badly-written and not profound

I think this person has a good point. This bet isn't notable like the Simmons-Tierney bet.--OMCV (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this wager follows from the importance of DNA itself. Is the organism reducible to genetic information or not? Not only is this an important issue, it's one of the defining issues of biology.

WP:NOTINHERITED. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to clear up the problems identified by OMCV. However, I could use help from more experienced editors. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to work on this article then please do it in your userspace, unless you are going to add multiple, independent WP:RS with significant coverage of this wager. Also, notability on wikipedia is defined in WP:NOTE, and cannot be inherited. Verbal chat 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact I worked on this page in now way indicates that I believe it worthy of article space. I think the idea of moving this page to Alfonzo Green work space is a good one. In my opinion this bet is entirely a ploy to sell books, and it will take more than two news paper articles (one German) to meet WP:NOTE.--OMCV (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and found that the only 3rd party report of this wager is the German article which means its comes no where near WP:NOTE. I've improved this article a great deal but until this bet is picked up by the main stream media or the scientific community it is web trivia. The page can be worked on at User:Alfonzo Green/Wolpert-Sheldrake wager.--OMCV (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]