Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega point (Tipler)

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 PeaceNT 09:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

A segment of an argument point forth by a math professor to further a religious agenda. No sources. Not a convincing subject. Rejected by science, it lacks any scientific criticism. FGT2 06:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent, related prod, was redirect here[1]. FGT2 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Tipler's Omega point is a fairly well-known idea, regardless of its scientific plausibility or lack thereof. Spacepotato 08:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless independent sources are included. Has the feel of
  WP:OR. Saligron 11:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Frank J. Tipler. Pete.Hurd 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Jefferson Anderson 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This is to long to merge. It does need sources. There is an additional major reason not to merge it: the article on Tipler is concerned primarily with his religious views. Although Tipler considers it to have religious implication, the omega point theory does not necessarily have them. It is perfectly compatible for the theory to be correct without any religious claim whatsoever. The beings who transmit their information so it exists after the postulated crunch of the universe are not therefore necessarily divine. ( I should mention that the postulated crunch is quite independent of this particular theory, is very widely supported, and does not necessarily lead to it.) This article is somewhat more general about the theory , and therefore justifiable. Whether or not is correct is not for WP to determine. Whether it is scientifically supported is irrelevant if it is widely known outside the science community, for whatever reason. DGG 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep with a quality notice, there is many results on search engines for Tipler's omega point, if we have
  mcdonalds, this most certainly should be left or merged, but perhaps modified to rid of the slight breathless hagiographic tone. A "under-standard" written disclaimer or perhaps neutrality questioned notice would be the choice perhaps. As a wikipedia reader i found this article to be worth in singular one million fiction plots written out entirely, do not delete, but put up a funny notice questioning quality instead.Book M 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep and improve. --Danielmachin 17:56, 4 February 2007 (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.