Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morphogenetic resonance

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 and redirect to Rupert Sheldrake. There does not seem any point in prolonging this further. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morphogenetic resonance

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

This article in its current form has no reliable secondary sources discussing the concept of morphogenetic resonance either skeptically or positively. As such, a separate article is not warranted, and this should be merged into Rupert Sheldrake, with a possible mention at Quantum mysticism. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topic already has better coverage at the Sheldrake article. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change name to Morphic Resonance", by which term the theory is more commonly known.Vorbee (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the Rupert Sheldrake page already has a more encyclopedic treatment, and this article doesn't really have anything worth merging into it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no opinion I am not having any problem with the article and feel unable to take any stand in this issue. If someone is having a problem, I think they should try to solve it, instead of making it other peoples problem.

I have two corrections and two comments to the statements above though. The two corrections disqualifies the two "delete" votes above and part of the initial reason for this debate. Here goes:

1. Morphogenetic resonance and fields are not a subset of any quantum phenomenon. Read up on it. Rupert has used quantum phenomena (especially entanglement) to describe that non-locality is not that controversial a subject after all. The stub-article already contain rudimentary information about other theories and concepts that groups with MR and MF. Read the article. I didn't see any contextual information about MR and MF in the Rupert Sheldrake article (or anywhere on Wikipedia) and it was one of the reasons I created the article.

2. The article on Rupert Sheldrake does not contain any useful information about MR or MF. That was a major reason I created this article in the first place. I am not against merging the article with the Rupert Sheldrake article, but to say that the same information is provided already is plain wrong.

3 (comment) If we should change the name of the article, I think we should change it to "Morphogenetic field" (perhaps "Morphic field"). Because it is the field that is the basis of the concept. Morphogenetic resonance is just a characteristic of, or a process involving, that field.

4 (comment) mostly directed at initial editor McClenon. A major reason I created the article was that I failed to see MR (and MF) put into any context. You also appear to miss more context? I have gathered some rudimentary context in the article already, but certainly think it could be improved. I am no way near an expert on the subject, so it would be great of other editors would help in this effort. RhinoMind (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-scientific nonsense, and non-notable one. Even Daily Mail source [1] does not support the claim. Yes, there are smart birds [2]. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the subject is non-scientific or not is irrelevant. The notability is documented by the many books and collabarative works on the subject. If the page is deleted, information about what MF and MR is should be explained and incorporated in the Rupert Sheldrake article. There is no information to be found at the moment.

About the Daily Mail article. If you have cared about this issue, you would have discovered that there are three references in the article. And that one of them is a ref to the scientific paper treating the blue tit subject. The Daily Mail article serves as a casual easy-read on what it is all about.

Your delete vote argument is disqualified. RhinoMind (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this thing seem to be frequently cited [3], however it is already sufficiently described on page Rupert Sheldrake. No need for content fork. This is a pseudoscientific explanation of facts that can be scientifically explained. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the morphogenetic or morphic field exists, then it is so a quantum phenomenon. If it isn't a quantum phenomenon, then it is pseudo-scientific junk. It definitely isn't classical physics, which is well known. Since quantum physics really is weird, and isn't understood, you can't say it isn't quantum unless you are saying that it is nonsense. Either it is quantum, or it is nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are making wild extrapolations and assumptions here. And they are undocumented, which makes them irrelevant. MR and MF might very well be pseudo-science. In fact I think you can clearly state that it is to some degree, as their existence hasn't been proved at all. That is why it is called a hypothesis. However, the article is not supposed to prove or disprove the existence of anything. It just summarizes what MR is supposed to be, according to the literature using the term. You don't have to believe in it. We also have an article on unicorns. Because the subject of MR and MF is used and referred to in many publications, it is notable and it is important to explain what it is supposed to be. Whether it exists or not.

Your comment reveals that you haven't read the article, nor have you cared to study even superficially what MR and MF is supposed to be. I think you should be ashamed of yourself, wasting other peoples time because you are lazy. RhinoMind (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please mind WP:NPA Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You haven't disqualified anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because...?

This is ridiculous. Can you tell me what is 2+2? I need to check your reading skills and intelligence. On the other hand, you could be joking of course. RhinoMind (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind WP:NPA, please. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Geogene (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which was a merge proposal. RhinoMind (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Although I'm familiar with other similar metaphysical beliefs they were under other names. It seems that this particular one is already covered in the Rupert Sheldrake article but is not a notable enough topic to have a separate article (outside of that notable author's article). —Paleo Neonate – 21:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated three times in this thread, the Rupert Sheldrake article does not contain any explanation of what Morphogentic fields or Morphogenetic resonance is. It just uses the term without any explanation, which is rather confusing. I take it that you haven't read the Rupert Sheldrake article before casting your vote. RhinoMind (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from this singular debate, I would really like to know about the similar concepts you loosely refers to. I believe they could make a proper context for MR and MFs. Please post on the MR articles TalkPage. RhinoMind (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any relevant sections into Rupert Sheldrake. This theory is not sufficiently notable on it's own, nor is it in any way separable from Rupert Sheldrake. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Erm, I think that Rupert Sheldrake as an article should be able to handle all of this. If and when he gets other people to notably advocate for his idea (beyond simply giving him a stage) then I can see our way to maybe creating such an article. I am interested in the claim (unsourced as of now) that Sheldrake limits his non-locality to time rather than space. I suppose that means that Rupert doesn't believe in remote viewing, then? Ah, the things I wish I could know. jps (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need for this article, and there aren't enough reliable, independent sources covering it to even justify keeping it. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 02:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any valid reason given for giving separate coverage of a pseudoscientific concept that is already explained in the second paragraph of Rupert Sheldrake's article and then mentioned again 42 more times in the same article. The only difference I see between the two articles is that the attribution of "fields" is reserved for the section about his books in the Rupert Sheldrake article, instead of put in the main explanation. Otherwise, both articles explain the theory as an invocation of fields for information transfer. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fringe science written so badly that it borders on bollocks, and really needs to be blown up. I've taught math, science, and criminal justice; I understand quantum physics. This is pseudoscience. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearian above me. If anything's not already covered in Rupert Sheldrake, merge it in first. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to Rupert Sheldrake article at best. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I heard about MF from David Icke here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-7DaehK_J4&list=PLw7v05z_xctpJ97iMFIb5m9txU8dumMQr&index=2 at 6 minutes at 23 seconds. Learned of Rupert Sheldrake only after running into this article. [User:Nickdzoni|Nickdzoni]] (talk) 8:03 AM, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that Wikipedia should be basing articles on Confessions Of A Satanist no matter how amusingly eye-roll-worthy the work appears. jps (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rupert Sheldrake. If, at some point in the future, this blows up as the latest pseudo-science fad, the article can be recreated, right now there's nothing there that wouldn't fit just as well in the Rupert Sheldrake article. ApLundell (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2017 (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.