Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon belt

Photon belt

AfDs for this article:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Photon Belt
• Articles for deletion/Photon belt

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

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

This article was previously deleted, but was given a second chance on the condition that it retain a neutral point of view. That has not happened. The article contains an overwhelming bias towards New Age philosophy, such as claiming in the intro that "This interaction might cause..." implicitly suggesting that it will happen, and describing The Shift of the Ages as a "masterwork" and Edgar Cayce as a "great healer". It also reads like an essay; there is an almost total reliance on primary sources, with no sense of context. I do believe that the photon belt is a notable New Age idea, but I can't see how to include this article without reducing it to one sentence. Serendi^podous 11:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: seems fairly balanced to me, and well written in general. I simply didn't get the impression of POV that Serendipodous notes above. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Check the references for the most egregious examples. Serendi^podous 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't understand. Do you mean that the referenced sources make wild unsubstantiated claims (etc)? Or that the article make such claims about the references? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The reference section contains a number of mini-essays that make a number of unsubstantiated claims. Serendi^podous 13:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Ahhh, now I see what you're saying. Feel free to delete those, be bold! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • As Maury Markowitz says, the edit tool, which you and everyone else have, is perfectly adequate for removing redundant potted biographies, trimming unnecessary quotations and editorializations, and separating footnotes from actual source citations — as I have just demonstrated. (The remaining biographies give the impression at least that there just might be enough sources to write real biographical encyclopaedia articles about the people listed.) The deletion tool is not used for editing a confused mish-mash of source citations and footnotes into some semblance of order. Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well they certainly look nicer now but I don't really see how they're any more neutral or better sourced. Serendi^podous 14:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The reasons for recreation was that sources found demonstrate notability. In general we don't delete articles due to NPOV, since deletion is not clean up. The article is crufty and while I feel that one sentence is too harsh, do feel free to prune the article down. It's odd that the nominator suggests doable steps for fixing the article in an AfD. Taemyr (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is I don't see any reliable sources about this. No one has taken the time to analyse the history behind this in a coherent manner (I don't just mean no one on Wikipedia; no one at all). Since this article is entirely reliant on citing the original material, there is no way to verify it. How can we know if Hesse was the first person to come up with the photon belt idea if this article just cites Hesse's book? How can we know if the belt's appearances in various New Age magazines indicate that it is particularly popular in New Age circles? I'd rewrite this but I don't know where to begin, because I have no idea what to base the article on. Serendi^podous 13:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a key issue I think. Compare and contrast with the Barry Setterfield issue, for instance, where there's plenty of obvious 3rd party editorial. There's definitely some in this case, but certainly nowhere near as much. I still err on the side of my keep, but only marginally. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The topic is notable as a New-Age concept, or catch phrase anyway. The article is probably as good as can be expected and gives interested people information on the history of the expression, as well as links to debunking for those interested in that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Taemyr. The article could certainly be improved, but I don't think that's a reason to delete it. YardsGreen (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If this article is to be kept, can I at least get it semi-protected, so it has time to breathe? Most of its edits have been from anonymous IPs. Serendi^podous 16:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. In general protection and semi-protection is used to stop ongoing disruption. So with no edits from ip's the last week, and no edit war or similar the responce will likely be that there is no recent disruption. This is because one of our guiding principles is that we are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So before protection we should try dialog. Meaning that you will have to wait for the next wave of IP and also should try talking with whoever arrives. Taemyr (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as the topic passes notability requirements. But please delete the "footnotes" section filled with mini-bios that don't meet WP:BIO, promotional links that constitute WP:LINKSPAM and editorializing that runs counter to WP:NPOV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)