Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdimensional hypothesis

{{Delrevafd|date=2009 January 17}}

: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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Interdimensional hypothesis]]=

:{{la|Interdimensional hypothesis}} ([{{fullurl:Interdimensional hypothesis|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdimensional hypothesis}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Although the topic is moderately notable, I see nothing of encyclopedic quality here, and no reputable sources, in spite of the fact that the article dates back to 2005 Looie496 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Although those sources are questionable, there are always more out there. They just have to be found. flaminglawyerc 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So go and find them. Airily waving your hands going "There must be sources" is only going to keep this article languishing in its current unacceptable state indefinitely. Reyk YO! 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that your efforts in this regard are no greater than xyr efforts. Editors not looking for sources themselves is the problem. Decrying others whilst doing exactly the same thing onesself is not helpful to Wikipedia. AFD relies upon all editors putting in the legwork to look for sources. Otherwise the layers of Swiss Cheese don't exist and things go wrong. Uncle G (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. As written, this is not an encyclopedic article, but I would think that some sources for this topic could be found. I could easily change my vote if better sources pop up. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article improvement tags have been there for more than a year now. If it hasn't been fixed by now then chances are it won't get fixed by waiting another year. However, would suggest deleting "without prejudice" so that in the future, should someone create an acceptable article, this won't be precluded by deletion now.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though I find the general topic interesting -- I've read Rick Strassman's book which is mentioned in the article. This looks uncomfortably like a massive exercise in WP:OR. If sufficient references can be found (rather than presumed to exist), could be OK to keep. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Topic satisfies WP:N and WP:V. For example, according to the History Channel: "There are multiple theories about the existence of extra-terrestrials. The two main theories are called the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the Interdimensional Hypothesis of unidentified flying objects...The Interdimensional Hypothesis of unidentified flying objects, also known as IH...was advanced by the astrophysicist Jacques Vallee, the same man who thought up of the Vallee method of categorization." [http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=57838&display_order=1&mini_id=57826]. More references can be found. Though the topic is not mainstream, and it's not science, it is notable as a cultural artifact. Article needs work, but that's not a reason to delete.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete' Topic should be covered under UFO religion article. This is a POV fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Strassman is the only source that could possibly be reliable and his quoted speculations don't seem to cover the same ground as the bulk of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete- I am now convinced that the sources provided are no sufficiently reliable and it's unlikely anything better will be found. Reyk YO! 01:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Does that include Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, cited by Jack-A-Roe above? Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: lacks reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Article appears to be little more than a quotefarm of quotes taken from blogs. HrafnTalkStalk 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The History Channel reference is sufficient for notability, and should be quoted in the article, which certainly needs a rewrite for NPOV. DGG (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR, not notable enough - History Channel isn't a reliable source for this (and not that About.com is, but the editor there says this hypothesis is 'far behind' the 2 leading ones, experimental government craft and aliens [http://ufos.about.com/b/2007/03/14/the-origin-of-ufos.htm]. Anyone notice that a vandal stuck in an email address in July 2007 and it's still there? dougweller (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The History Channel isn't the source. Has any editor commenting on it actually read the page? It's clearly marked as being a copy of an article in the 2006 edition of Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I meant for notability, I don't think it is a reliable source for claiming notability or at least sufficient, a reply to the comment directly above mine. But I could have worded it better, because the rest of my sentence is about the differing view about the interdimensionalhypothesis. dougweller (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You are still challenging the source on the grounds of reliability (rather than some other grounds), then. How is Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia unreliable, exactly? Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • My philosophy is that an article should not be kept merely because it would be possible to write a valid article about the topic. Unless the existing article has at least some encyclopedic content, there is no reason to keep it. Nothing prevents a new version with better content being created later. Looie496 (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That may be your personal philosophy, but Wikipedia's philosophy is outlined in Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which state that we don't delete articles that are simply in need of cleanup (which is any improvement to the article that can be done by editors using the edit button, including rewriting — for which we even have an explicit cleanup template notice) and we allow for articles to be imperfect as we edit them towards perfection. It is those that we are supposed to follow. So please follow them. That involves looking for, reading, and evaluating the sources. You haven't even addressed the source cited by Jack-A-Roe above, yet, let alone shown that you've checked to see whether any other sources exist, as deletion policy requires you to determine. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • delete this non-article. As Looie says, this doesn't prejudice a possible later article based on actual references. Develop a referenced discussion of this "Interdimensional hypothesis" at Ufology or UFO religion, and split it into a standalone article after a substantial, well-referenced paragraph has been compiled. Don't turn every phrase or term into a standalone article, it fragments Wikipedia and degrades quality. --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a rationale for either merger or outright redirection, which can be performed by any editor (even one without an account) using just the edit button. An administrator using the delete button isn't required for that. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plausibly there's a valid article here but this isn't it. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or Fix immediately... Far too many people respond to an AfD by commenting that sources exist, but can't be bothered to actually fix the article. If sources exist, but no one cares enough about a topic to actually add them to an article, that says something about the topic's lack of notability right there. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wrong. Editor behaviour only says things about editors — their biases, their lack of knowledge, or their unwillingness to write or to edit. Notability is not determined by editors, nor reflected by editors biases or subjective opinions inferred from their behaviour or otherwise. Notability is determined by the existence of sources of appropriate provenances and depths. You haven't addressed that at all in your rationale (except perhaps by including the implicit premise in your argument that sources do exist). Consider this: By also not fixing the article yourself in the way that you want it to be fixed, you are as much a part of the problem as the other editors you are decrying for not fixing the article. Remember {{tl|sofixit}} and Wikipedia:Be bold. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 16:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion was previously closed as delete by MBisanz on 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC). This close was overturned and the discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 17 in light of improvements to the article during the discussion and relatively weak arguments. lifebaka++ 16:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep- More sources would certainly be nice, but for now, it certainly appears to pass notability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems that sources are available. The problem is that I don't know if we can describe them as reliable and significant [http://books.google.com/books?id=_EfaAO12k2wC&pg=PA237&dq=%22Interdimensional+hypothesis%22#PPA238,M1 1] and [http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-has-strip=1&field-keywords=%26%2334%3Binterdimensional%20hypothesis%26%2334%3B&page=1&url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks 2]. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep though merge might be a better outcome. But it meets WP:N on its own. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete this is in-universe (ha!) trivia from the fringes of outer cloud cuckoo land. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:*I'm missing a policy-based reason for deletion there. A paper encyclopedia covers this. We aren't that, so why not cover it if guideline and policies are met? 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep the sources are enough to support the article. "fringes of cloud-cuckoo land" is a classic IDONTLIKEIT. Anyway, coverage by F&W is sufficient, by our basic rules ever since the start. An an afd request starting out by saying "the topic is moderately notable" is a self-contradiction. I agree with Uncle G, to delete you need to show that it is unsourceable, not merely presently unsourced. DGG (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Bad article content is a valid reason to delete... especially when it sucks as bad as this. There is nothing wrong with a red link. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Serious question: where is is it stated in policy or guidelines that bad article content is a valid reason to delete? I thought that wasn't the case. Hobit (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The very last criteria is "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's bending the sentence pretty far. Do you believe the interpretation that the sentence means that we can/should delete poorly written articles has consensous? Hobit (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that is "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". Are you saying improving this article to the point it is acceptable is not "practical"? If so, why not? JulesH (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N - has not recieved significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is pretty ludicrous to suggest that Steven J. Dick is not independent of Vallee. Such a suggestion is more indicative of the fact that you have not looked at what sources exist, rather than of any problem with the article's subject. As such, any estimation by you of whether the notability criteria are satisfied cannot be taken to be based upon any actual scrutiny of sources on your part. Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced and meets WP:NOTE. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability and verifiability established for a start, by the mention in Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia and the fact that The History Channel found it notable enough to include that F&W information in a documentary on UFOs. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC) [Note for closing admin: This is not intended as a duplicate !vote; the initial deletion was overturned at DRV to be re-listed - since this AfD was re-opened on the same page instead of started as a new AfD, I am re-affirming my "keep" comment from above for clarity. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)]
  • Keep. More sources would certainly be nice, but this article can be fixed. - Ret.Prof (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC).

: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.