Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millsian

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. No independent references to establish notability.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millsian

Article was tagged for deletion but the prod notice was removed. This article is not notable, as the theory has never been noticed by anyone outside the Millsian Inc organization. There are no peer reviewed articles on it by anyone other than Mills and coworkers and it not clear that they are peer reviewed. Bduke (Discussion) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. The work described in this article looks impressive on the surface, but it is not supported by any independent review. The comparison with quantum chemistry methods is spurious, as they refer to Hartree-Fock results which we have known for decades do not give accurate bond energies. However other methods do and are now in in wide use. Mills is well known for odd science, which only he knows about. For example, Hydrino theory, which has redirects from his name, Randell Mills, and his company, Blacklight Power, covers a lot of his work and this software could possibly be mentioned there. However, it has received minimal notice even as pseudoscience, and no notice in the regular scientific literature. If it receives such notice, it can be recreated, but it would need to be more NPOV. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the one who proposed deleting the article but the "prod tag" was removed. This product is not notable because there are no reliable independent publications about it. I took a quick look at their self-published white paper and it doesn't look like mainstream science to me. --Itub (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A software implementation (of a fringe theory) which has not received independent coverage from reliable sources. Whilst the theory has, for various reasons, received commentary, I can't see anyone other than Mills' gang using this particular program. Fringe issues and questionable comparisons aside, if there is no independent application and reporting of the software, either in academic or industrial settings, it can not yet be notable enough for an article of its own. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see this as being notable. It's comprised solely of primary sources, which isn't helping me feel any more confident. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 05:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.

Claim: "The theory has never been noticed by anyone outside the Millsian organization."

Status: False. The 893 members of the Hydrino Study Group have posted 13,913 messages.

Claim: "It is not clear that [Mills' articles] are peer reviewed."

Status: False. Here's a list of Mills' peer-reviewed papers, most of them describing the theory behind the Millsian software. Having said that, peer review is not the standard for the existence of articles about commercial software applications. iTunes, for example, has not been peer reviewed, yet it's entirely appropriate to have an article about it. If you have concerns about the quality of the peer reviews, why not constructively add that to the article, rather than destructively deleting the entire article?

If Hartree-Fock gives such poor results, why aren't you advocating deletion of the Hartree-Fock article? Instead, you're advocating deletion of an article about a molecular modeling application that gives results far superior to Hartree-Fock. How illogical.

Your kneejerk application of the "pseudoscience" tag lumps Mills in with the likes of Dennis Lee and John Keely. Clearly, he does not deserve this -- his work deserves fair consideration, which it will not get thanks to the kneejerk namecalling. If Millsian someday gains mainstream acceptance, but that day is delayed because of Bduke's censorship and suppression of information about Millsian, the username Bduke will be lumped in with those who persecuted Galileo. Fortunately the faculty at Rowan University are giving Mills a fair shake, and have independently validated his experimental results. Novel compound (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone advocates a 'keep' position, it would be their onus to add what the article is lacking. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 06:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Millsian someday gains mainstream acceptance (or at least notice), then we can have an article about it. As for "that day is delayed because of Bduke's censorship": it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote and accelerate the acceptance of new ideas. Read the policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view for more information. --Itub (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note, Novel compound. This discussion is about the software package – not the theory or its predictions. Arguments for keeping this article need to show that this specific program is notable. Anyone can write a program to do whatever calculation they wish. It is the recognition, application, and commentary upon, by independent parties, which would make it notable. I can not see that any of these have occurred with regard to Millsian. However, as XF Law noted, if you can point us to such sources I would certainly reevaluate my position. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails relevant notability criteria. As a side note, appears to be another content fork/end-run related to Randell Mills' claims. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sufficient mention of the company and product are already made at Hydrino theory; might be worth redirecting there. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:59, 25 October 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.