The articles would also have to have notable sources to back this up and prove that it is not just vandalism. The article would also have to cite the science opposing this theory. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If there's a notable faction that believes this, nutty as it may be, there is call for articles on it... but they need to be NPOV, meaning that alternative scientific explanations should be given. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but care must be taken to avoid original research or turning the articles into coatracks on either side. Claims for truth on the CPP side, which are clear to be —scientifically speaking— utter bollocks, must be particlarly carefully phrased as simple formulations. Dorftrottel (bait) 01:59, April 13, 2008
sounds notable as a social phenomenon or "urban legend" but articles must include scientific view. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Only if the CPP articles themselves are supported with sources, and the mainstream science is also supported with sources. Otherwise, delete the articles as non-verifiable. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and prune, and merge, and prune again, until what's left is properly sourced. If what's left is nothing, then nothing is what we should have. Angus McLellan(Talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the standard way to deal with it, but the number & extent of articles on the subject should be kept down to what the sources will support. The right balance tends to be difficult to achieve, and there are no preset rules. There is no necessary distinction between NPOV and SPOV for this sort of article--it's not a valid dichotomy. The more recent problem around here comes when people try to denigrate the intrinsically worthless theory beyond what is necessary. DGG (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Either this or delete them outright. The number of articles should be kept to a minimum to avoid undue weight. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Article may be long and funny but no crappy statements as facts, please Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Caution is necessary here - I believe that to suggest that the article should be dominated by a mainstream scientific explanation of why concept is nonsense is to misread WP:FRINGE; however, every CPP claim made in the article needs to include a scientific response. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The articles should be framed as "CPP is a scientifically unsupported belief that..." and should make strong reference to the scientificly accepted explanations for the cited phenomena. This assumes the topic has received sufficient coverage in the mainstream media to establish it as a notable belief. If not, AfD it. Yilloslime(t) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If the so-called "phenomenon" is notable enough to be considered some sort of Urban legend or has gained considerable media attention, then the article should include what science has to say about it, but keep it balanced and in a tone that is not negative. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And a strong helping of WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If so many believe this, it needs to be in Wiki, AND they need to describe their explanation of it, but a full section should be included, after they have explained it, to dispute it and explain it rationally. Preceeding signed by: BnaurTalk 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Assuming we have reliable sources describing the view, all reputable content should be merged to one main article. While we can attribute "X believes" or "X states that...", we can also provide a mainstream perspective - with most notable fringe ideas, at least someone has tested it out just to prove them wrong. Otherwise, mainstream science clearly provides other explanations for the phenomenon even if they don't specifically refute this explanation. Shellbabelfish 18:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod. BrownHornet21 (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Assuming this is a sufficiently widely held belief to merit inclusion on notability, there will be reliable sources taking a scientific point of view, which obviously merit inclusion based on WP:NPoV. But then, given my username, my biases should be pretty obvious. :P skeptical scientist (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
An article should be balanced. Including just the pseudoscience is one-sided, as would be just mainstream science. — Parent5446☯(msgemail) 19:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Inform the tendentious editors that these articles do not currently meet guidelines on FRINGE, and NPOV / UNDUE. They either need to stop removing valid presentations of conventional explanations, or the articles need to be deleted as contravening one of the pillars. VanIsaacWScontribs 08:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)'
The article should be balanced to provide both points of view, and written according to WP:NPOV Melody Concertotalk 03:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Balance between both views. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
