Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specified complexity

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 keep‎. I see a consensus that this is notable pseudoscience (with sources to demonstrate), and that while the article may need work and careful presentation, the subject is encyclopedic. ^Complex/_Rational 21:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specified complexity

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

According to the template, it fails WP:N and is possibly a hoax, for its accuracy and truthfulness is disputed. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious pseudoscience, not notable for even being a misunderstanding, unlike intelligent design. Some of it could be merged into the authors' names. At least needs TNT in some sections. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep: Recently applied tags notwithstanding, article seems well sourced. The topic has attracted enough scholarly commentary to demonstrate notability. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just because an idea is pseudoscience doesn't mean coverage of the topic is not encyclopedic. There's an extensive encyclopedic coverage of things like Hermetica. The article might be a hoax if it was written credulously, but the text is actually pretty upfront about the non-scientific nature of the topic (WP:NHOAX). 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 22:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject matter being pseudoscientific is not a reason to delete the article. It just means we need to be careful to follow WP:FRINGE. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NHOAX. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not keen on the concept or the people associated with it, but that's beside the point: it has been widely discussed and needs to have an article. Athel cb (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable pseudoscientific topic. I don't like it. I don't agree with it. I would hope the Wikipedia page for it will remain one that posits it *as* pseudoscience. But there's no grounds to delete.Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William Dembski. I see no benefit in having a separate article, TBH. jps (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline. Dembski's article is over 90k characters, which says adding another 20k~30k from this article might not be advisable. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think there is considerable article bloat in both places. jps (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any specific examples of "considerable article bloat" in this article or in William Dembski? Partofthemachine (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loving documentation of bullshit like Specified_complexity#Specificity is not really something well attested to in reliable sources. Wikipedia ought to excise such blatherskite. jps (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being. If later edits shrink it to something smaller, we could consider merging, but that's not a pressing concern. XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2023 (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.