Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality is maintained.
  • Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
  • To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.
Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:FTN-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

  • If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead.
  • Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact.
  • Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:


STS-48#UFO.2FIce_particles_controversy[edit]

A fringe journal's conclusion that some anomalous UFO thing happened is being given equal footing to NASA's explanation that it was only some ice particles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no independent reliable sources referring to this specific event as a controversy, the author of the article and the publisher of the short-lived journal are the same person (fails WP:SPS), and I cannot find that this specific event is even mentioned in Plait's book. Not sure if other sourcing from the usual UFO crowd is enough to state what they allege. Location (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Likely also a case for WP:ONEWAY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting indeed.. Carlotto's analysis is about sts-80 footage/incident, not about sts-48; the two are different missions. Therefore, Carlotto's comment that "the objects U1 and U2's being ice particles or other relatively small objects in close proximity to the orbiter to be the most likely explanation" is irrelevant for this specific case. We don't need any independent reliable source to classify this specific event as controversy, for we are intelligent beings and can reach a deduction ourselves when there are completely opposite POVs about the incident/event (a deduction which is not SYNTH/OR). sts-48 incident is covered in Plait's book, pages 208-209; it is also evident from google books. Pdf copy of the book is here. It's better to copy the text here also, in case the link becomes dead:
"People who should know better make this mistake as well. Take Dr. Jack Kasher, for example. He is a physics teacher at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He believes that UFOs are in fact spaceships populated by aliens. His claim to fame involves a bit of footage from STS 48, a Space Shuttle flight from 1991. During the mission the cameras were pointed down, toward the Earth. The cameras used at night are extremely sensitive and can see outlines of the continents, even in the dark. In the now-famous footage, we see specks of light moving in the camera’s field of view. Suddenly, there is a flash of light. One of the specks then makes a sharp-angled turn, and another shoots in from off-camera, going right through where the other speck was. Kasher claims that this is evidence of alien spacecraft. The first point of light is an alien ship. The burst of light seen is the flare from a ground-based missile launch or a secret test of a Star Wars defense. The second point of light is the missile or beam weapon itself. The first dot, the alien ship, then makes an evasive maneuver to avoid being blown back to wherever it came from. According to Kasher, the film has captured an interplanetary battle. Needless to say, I disagree with him. So do a lot of other folks. These include Shuttle astronaut Ron Parise and space program analyst James Oberg. Both have discussed what really happened on STS 48. The specks of light are actually bits of ice floating near the Shuttle. The particles of ice form on the outside of the Shuttle on every mission, and can get jolted loose when the rockets fire. Once separated, they tend to float near the Shuttle. The flash of light seen was a vernier rocket, a small rocket that controls the direction in which the Shuttle points. It does not generate much thrust, which is why you don’t suddenly see the Shuttle moving during the burst. (Kasher claimed that a rocket firing would obviously move the Shuttle but neglected to research just how much thrust the rocket gave off.) The rocket burst hitting the first bit of ice is what suddenly changes its course, and the second bit of light flashing by is simply another ice particle accelerated by the rocket. If you look at the footage closely, you can see it doesn’t actually get very close to the first particle, making this a poor demonstration of Star Wars technology. Kasher has made quite an industry of going on TV shows and showing this footage, which he clearly does not understand. He even sells a video of his analysis of the footage ($29.95 plus shipping and handling). I’d save my money if I were you." Logos5557 (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Real sts-48 analyses are here and here. And, what the conclusion or discussion of any analysis is, is not a factor for notability, as we all know. The existence of such analyses is the proof of notability. Logos5557 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pdf; I think I searched "STS-48" with a hyphen. The analyses above are not proof of notability in that the source for those analyses, New Frontiers in Science, is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. Location (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My search with hypens had given this. What makes you think that, New Frontiers in Science is not a reliable source? Should you volunteer to list it in reliable sources noticeboard, there arises a considerable possibility to increase the number of opinions. Logos5557 (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the information provided here, NFS appears to have published less than 20 articles by about 13 different authors. Six of those articles are by the journal's editor-in-chief, and at least two others appear to be reviews of the editor-in-chief's work. I don't see a list of reviewers for this journal, and it is a reasonable assumption that whatever peer-review process it may have had was likely to be in-bred. NFS lasted one year/four issues and the editors essentially admit that mainstream journals won't publish their stuff and that they believe the "scientific establishment" censors discussion on scientific "anomalies". There is no doubt that this is a fringe source. Reliable sources are to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I don't think we can say that about this journal. Location (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
NFS is definitely fringe. There's no "controversy" about ice particles vs. UFOs in reliable sources, so it's undue in the STS-48 article. If needed, a brief explanation sourced to Plait's book can be mentioned at UFO sightings in outer space. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
And which policy or guideline says that fringe sources are not reliable? Let me remind WP:BIASED once again. There is definitely a "controversy"; these sources, which you prefer to call fringe, prove that. Plait's book is itself sufficient for notability; it reveals the earliest pieces of the controversy, Dr.Kasher, James Oberg, their contradicting views/analyses, Kasher's tv appearances etc. I didn't know all these stuff, for instance. Majority of the people visiting sts-48 article, or googling "sts-48" phrase, have been after the ufos, not after the mission highlights (we can simply compare article traffic statistics of sts-48 with another mission which is free from any ufo incident). The current text is very brief and does not even cite/mention Dr.Kasher. Should you still have some doubts, I would recommend reliable sources noticeboard. Logos5557 (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Fringe sources are only reliable for what the authors believe. Nothing more. If there isn't independent notice of what the authors believe, there is likely to be no way for us to meaningfully discuss such subjects in Wikipedia jps (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Rarely even that. Mostly, they are only reliable for what the authors say. They might believe it, but for all we know it could be an outright fiction. For instance, "In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in the Dialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat." While sometimes words are just wrong, at other times, they are intentionaly deceptive. We cannot presume that primary sources are written in good faith. Period. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Plait's book is an independent reliable source, which determines the notability of this controversy, as outlined in WP:FRIND. The analyses published by the organization, which is identified as fringe by some, can serve as additional sources. The above mentioned opinion that those analyses establishing the notability can be given up, on the grounds that those analyses came after the very first controversy between Kasher and Oberg (and perhaps authors of the analyses were also aware of Plait's book as well), which practically means that notability had already been established beforehand when those analyses were published. Logos5557 (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Myofascial meridians[edit]

The article is asserting some dubious/fringe concepts as fact, and the sourcing is scratchy at best. Wondering if this is salvageable? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I just proposed that the article be merged into Acupuncture. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It's pseudoscientific piffle which should probably be deleted, not merged. It's not in anatomy books and is pretty much unknown, as it should be. A very fringe idea. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd also support a delete. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd support delete unless there are some sources that haven't been found. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion at acupuncture talk resulted in no consensus to merge. Recommending AFD for Myofascial meridians. The article is littered with primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see ANI NB and 3RR NB. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The AFD discussion has started. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myofascial meridians. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Navalia[edit]

In all fairness, the article Navalia is utterly insignificant. It is about a place (polis/oppidum) mentioned once by Ptolemy in the Geographia and that's all the mentions in classical literature. At some point one "Willem Mateboer" (not a historian, AFAIK) [1] associated this Navalia (there are others, like wharfs on the Tiber river mentioned by Livy) with the Dutch town of Genemuiden. This suggestion was followed by Rolf1981 (talk · contribs) when he created the article. This was removed by Notum-sit (talk · contribs) at which point a (slowmotion) editwar ensued, mirroring (in a mild form) the goings on on the Dutch Wiki.

The "source" used is a 17th century map by Isaac Tirion, which, obviously is not a RS for associating any Roman name with any town. This has been explained to Rolf1981 on the dutch wiki. Also a book called "Excerpta Romana" is mentioned and though it does mention Navalia, it provides no link to Genemuiden. Another important point seems to be the association of this Navalia with the nabalia flumen (the river Nabalia) mentioned by Tacitus (Historiae V, 26). There is, however, no evidence that the two are linked in any way.

Earlier this year I bacame aware of this article and found it nonsense, since Genemuiden does not have any archeology at all from Roman times. I decided to rewrite the articles (on both wiki's) to reflect what little is known and provided ample sources. Afterwards a slow-motion editwar started (and still continues) between me (trying to keep the nonsense out) and a couple of anons trying to get it back in. I'm confident at least some of these IP-addresses are in fact Rolf1981, since he cannot resist poking his nose at me on nl.wiki. Some might be meatpuppets.

I am not eager to get a 3RR-warning or engage in an editwar, however slow it is. Please advise. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not me who started a edit war, but Kleuske herself. It is clearly mentioned that Genemuiden is only one of the theories about Navalia. That's it! For some reason Kleuske takes it very personally and started insulting right away, for which she got a warning/advise to stop by the board on the Dutch wiki. As you can find on the comment page on Dutch wiki-Navalia I have been very polite all the way, which unfortunally cant be said about Kleuske. Regards, Rolf1981 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC) (sorry for spelling, no time!)
Violates WP:FRINGE " For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter". Open and shut case unless reliable secondary sources are forthcoming (your comments against Kleuske is besides the point, this is a content board), Second Quantization (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

L. Fletcher Prouty[edit]

I have a couple questions about how to approach content related to L. Fletcher Prouty. First, the article states:

Prouty subscribed to the theory that oil is not derived from fossils but from carbon deposits deep within the Earth (abiogenic petroleum origin theory).[citation needed]

I am unable to find any reference to this in what would normally be considered "reliable sources". There is a YouTube interview of him in which he does state this, but there is none of the usual information provided about who interviewed him, where he was interviewed, or when he was interviewed: [5]. Secondly, should The Secret Team and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy be redirected to the article on Prouty? I am unable to find enough information for the independent notability required in WP:NBOOK. -Location (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Electronic harassment‎[edit]

Addition of reams of poorly-sourced POV-pushing tinfoil-hattery... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it is WP:COPYVIO too -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I wondered about that. Where is it from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I found some of it here but it makes my eyes itch. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this article notable?[edit]

Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I am having a hard time figuring out what makes this particular UFO case notable. It's true that UFO believers tend to fawn over the accounts of pilots, military officers, and other professionals, but that does not to me seem a reasonable justification in light of our policies. Additionally, the article seems very overlong. jps (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If I haven't already stated it previously, the trouble with these articles is that they always seem to be written as though there was an actual incident instead of presenting the information as a claim made by someone. As an example, there is a document in which he alleges he was ordered to shoot down the UFO,[6] but is there a document from someone else stating that they ordered him to shoot down the UFO? Maybe there is, but I cannot find the primary source document that appears to be the foundation of the article (it's likely somewhere in the October 2008 section here). There does seem to be mainstream coverage of the pilot's claims (e.g. [7]), so I think there is probably enough reliable material regarding the claim to pass WP:GNG. Location (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not very good at writing these articles. The source you linked to seems to me to be sensationalist nonsense of the sort that we warn against using in WP:NFRINGE, but I acknowledge that I myself have a hard time understanding why certain UFO incidents become obsessed over and others disappear into oblivion. It's part of the phenomenon which is not well explained even on our pages on the subject. jps (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I would say, the coverage in List of UFO sightings would be enough. Haven't checked all the references (majority of which do not seem RS), but the first one makes this case barely notable. Traffic statistics seems suffering interestingly high compared to roswell. Should definitely be summarized; personally I do not have the motivation to deal with though. Logos5557 (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for their input. On the basis of this discussion, I have started this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter. jps (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of interest?[edit]

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Revisit the question of the name of the article

Please add an even number of pennies, if you would.

jps (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A "good article" with poor editorial control[edit]

Falun Gong (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I found a number of instances where "science" was mentioned in the article including a peculiar claim that qi energy had been scientifically measured and that the pseudoscientific nature of the teachings of this religion was somehow an example of political machination rather than identifying claims that simply have no empirical basis. I wonder if this article should be reassessed at the very least.

jps (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, after having read the book cited and trying to conform to what was actually written, the previous wording was restored. [8]. I admit I may not have written the best sentence ever, but the previous sentence is not at all an accurate picture of the machinations that were associated with these "scientific" claims of measuring qi. jps (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's under discretionary sanctions, and is to my eyes maybe one of the biggest pits for POV pushing we've got. Maybe go to WP:AE? And I think the more unbiased eyes that topic can get the better. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about ARBPSCI[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Pseudoscience.

I don't think ArbCom should be dictating content. YMMV. Feel free to comment.

jps (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they are dictating content.We are free to ignore everything they thought at that arbitration case. Second Quantization (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we are free to do that, but considering that other people here seem to think it pertinent, it might be nice to have rid of it once and for all. jps (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I do find it quite strange that people insist on clinging to ArbCom's pearls of wisdom as if they have a clue about demarcation. They're a disciplinary group, their role is behavior (by policy). Second Quantization (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Scott Tips[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Tips. This will be the 3rd AfD of articles created by the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin[edit]

PhiChiPsiOmega (a user in the past who has caused trouble on parapsychology talk pages) and Brian Josephson both soapboxing on the Dean Radin talk page trying to cause arguments about "skeptics" and their own beliefs about parapsychology. Nothing they say has anything to do with the article. Any eyes on this would be helpful. Goblin Face (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I submit that Goblin Face is equally at fault (I assume directing attention to what editors do is the point of the noticeboard page, assuming it is correctly named), selectively trying to remove items that tend to give a favourable view of Radin. Since when has it been in order to remove large chunks of a current discussion on a Talk page? You can see here (particularly the section Reception) what the page looked like before GF started acting thus. I trust the 'eyes' that look at this section will agree with PsiChi and myself that the discussion is (in the main) concerned with the question of what sources, etc. are appropriate to the article. GF and others give the appearance at least of trying to obscure this essential fact. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with GF's removal. Is the French paper published in a peer-reviewed journal? It appears to be self-published, and if so, should not be included on that basis. Also, the French paper does not discuss Dean Radin and would be off-topic. If it were in a peer-reviewed journal, it should go on parapsychology, at best. Perhaps reopening yet another re-rehash discussion of parapsychology being pseudoscience. Jim1138 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Re your enquiry, I've checked this using Google Scholar, which indicates that the paper concerned has been published on 9 distinct web sites, 8 of which are academic (*.ac.uk), implying (a) it is not self-published, and (b) it can reasonably be classed as notable. Regarding your point that the article does not refer to Radin explicitly, it does discuss research in parapsychology generally, so unless there is some respect in which Radin's work is inferior to that in parapsychology generally its conclusion (that parapsychology is not pseudoscience) would apply equally to his work and thus complement the references (also not published in peer-reviewed journals, if I may be permitted to make the point) that describe his work as pseudoscience. Saying this reference can't be included just because Radin's work is not explicitly mentioned is blatant sophistry. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It was a talk published on a website - not in a science journal. It isn't a paper. It does not mention Radin. You are doing original research which is against Wikipedia policy. We can only cite sources on Radin's Wikipedia article if they mention Radin. It is a waste of time to cite sources that do not mention Radin and then put them on his article. It is like me going onto the Brian Josephson article and using a science paper claiming parapsychology is a pseudoscience, even though the paper does not discuss you. Of course you won't see me doing this. So you shouldn't be doing it either. It is the definition of original research. Goblin Face (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Goblin Face, anyone familiar with science would characterise this as a 'paper delivered at a conference', i.e. a particular kind of paper (here, if you like, is a 'Guide to Conference Papers for Dummies' to bring you up to speed). And I see from the conference announcement that French was one of the principal speakers. I don't know the details of this particular case, but it is quite common in this day and age for the organisers to publish the papers submitted by the speakers on a web site, rather than produce a book of Proceedings or have a Journal publish them, so the fact that the paper was not published in a journal is neither here nor there. By any reasonable criteria (and even according to WP:RS etc.) this paper is of sufficient status to be quoted in the article, whatever some legalistic interpretation going by the letter of the guidelines rather than the spirit of the guidelines might appear to suggest.
And regarding your assertion:

It is like me going onto the Brian Josephson article and using a science paper claiming parapsychology is a pseudoscience, even though the paper does not discuss you

I think it would be perfectly on order for the article to say something like 'one of bdj's interests is parapsychlogy, a subject regarded by some scientists as pseudoscience', quoting a source that doesn't mention me. You seem for some reaaon to have problems seeing this. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not playing your semantic games with you. But ok it's from a conference. What do you do at conferences, you talk! So French has spoken at his little conference thingy and that is that. There is no evidence this is a published paper and it has nothing to do with Radin. So it doesn't matter what he has said because what you are doing is original research (the conference doesn't mention Radin). It isn't going on the article + It is a nice Sunday afternoon so why waste time discussing this? I am busy. Nice try though :) Goblin Face (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You are using Radin's talk page to discuss your personal beliefs about parapsychology or to attack skeptics and accuse editors of having POV, none of this has anything to do with the article. I could easily list diffs here but I can't be asked with this right now. Anyone can read the history of talk-page and see what has been going on. Like I said if you want to discuss Radin's Wikipedia article then go ahead, some of your early posts were on topic but many of your recent posts were not. You are also now using your own talk-page accusing Wikipedia editors of being biased against Radin. This is not productive behavior. Goblin Face (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, then. To stick to the point at issue, whether the talk of parapsychology has any relevance or not to the article, here are the beans. On the page it is asserted that Radin's parapsychological work is 'pseudoscience' (quote: Scientists ... suggest that [Radin] has embraced pseudoscience and that he misunderstands the nature of science). A review by French (himself a noted sceptic) looks into the question of whether this type of work is pseudoscience and concludes that, while it is commonly regarded as such, by the majority of criteria it is science. It is entirely reasonable to include this second opinion, which countermands the opinions found in abundance on this page in the sceptical reviews, but GF, as soon as he can make it (29 minutes later to be precise) deletes the reference claiming it is not relevant (see also comment above, responding to Jim1138). Pfui! I leave it to others to determine if this, which is not untypical of GF's efforts, is acceptable behaviour for an editor. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You have spent some time on this board attacking individuals. This is not a conduct board, this is a content board. Attacking individuals personally is irrelevant to this board. If you have some complaint to make, take it to the correct venue, WP:ANI and WP:AE, while being aware of WP:BOOMERANG, Second Quantization (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have made a number of modifications to address your point, and will consider taking this to an official complaints page as you suggest — thank you for the suggestion. Sorry if I've missed something. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this, I don't see how this source is any less reliable than the (probably inappropriate) citation of Steven Novella's blog on the topic. That said, there are clear WP:SYNTH issues here, as the paper doesn't really have anything to do with Dean Radin (other than the fact that it cites one collaboration between Radin and some mainstream scientists. Not sure what the deal is with the article's talk page - it seems like discussion of this issue has been walled off because the "topic has drifted". 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 12:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Codex Alimentarius[edit]

This edit[9] seems to be yet another attempt to add fringe material to this article. So far as I can see from the sources, this violates WP:UNDUE (note that the article for Rima Laibow was deleted at AfD and the article for Scott Tips looks like going the same way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup. More of the same POV pushing from the same contributor... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
SPA POV pushing as pretty much a primary defining characteristic is grounds for sanctions, and I think the time to consider sanctions here as definitely come. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
SPA needs to be discouraged from repeatedly attempting to insert by force fringe-altmed-conspiracy stuff into the wiki. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

UFOs in the Canary Islands[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1976 Canary Island UFO sighting.

jps (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Notable UFO incident?[edit]

Falcon Lake incident (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

What are your thoughts?

jps (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The usual. Guy claims he saw something and the government documents that he claimed it. Some other guy interested in UFOlogy eventually writes about it in a book, but no mainstream sources do. Without mainstream sources discussing the subject, it could be merged to some parent article. Location (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There are no notable UFO incidents. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Aw c'mon see, Roswell UFO incident, that's pretty notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
However in this case, I see no evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz[edit]

Leonard Horowitz (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

This to me looks like a case where a WP:FRINGEBLP is not warranted. I note that more than a few of the sources in the article don't even mention the person! However, I thought I'd put the case here before sending it off to deletion school just in case people know of some sourcing of which I'm not aware.

jps (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of the subject. As you alluded to above, the article appears to exploit tenuous links between Horowitz and Kimberly Bergalis as well as Horowitz and the Jeremiah Wright controversy as a backdoor approach to notability. The bulk of the article is built upon either primary source information or information that does not mention Horowitz. Location (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree I am not seeing RS discussing the subject significantly. There is an entry at The Skeptic's Dictionary here but even adding that to everything already in the article does seem to warrant an article. A quick check of some of the databases I have access to doesn't return anything of substance. I see no reason not to proceed to AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Zhi Gang Sha[edit]

Zhi Gang Sha (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The article requires cleanup. Not sure if it is notable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot help with the clean-up right now, but it looks as though he might squeak by WP:GNG. Location (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Definitely needs some cleanup but as Location said seems like it might manage GNG. Ref #2 is a Sydney Morning Herald article which while very derivative of the Wired article lists some fairly notable attributes. Coverage is thin though, I'd say its borderline. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs[edit]

Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs (2nd nomination).

Note that this article has been tagged for improvement since it survived its last AfD in 2009.

jps (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Zicam[edit]

Just as an FYI - The Zicam[10] article has been nominated for deletion. VVikingTalkEdits 21:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)