Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraterrestrial energyzoa theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraterrestrial energyzoa theory

Extraterrestrial energyzoa theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unreferenced and possibly original research. Article creator, User:Cyberguru, is the originator of the theory. User:Nima Baghaei, a contributor to the article, added a {{pagenumbers}} template, but this is incorrect -- none of the footnotes actually are references; they simply spell out details of the book title that is the source of the footnote. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I have been helping clean up this article, from what I can tell the article is fine, we just need to get more specific page numbers from the books in citation (unless the entire book itself is on the subject hehe) and check the wording to make sure its neutral ... also if anyone can find any other references that would be great but the article is fine and should stay, the images also add great improvement to the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. RogueNinjatalk 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't doubt that the "cited" titles have been published, but more likely than not they're being used to support a point of view they did not explicitly state. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 00:58Z
  • Keep The article is well formulated and coherent in explaining the theory. As all new theories it has little historical background or reference, but that is not a reason for deletion. The cited books of Trevor James Constable indeed do propose a similair energy being theory, therefore share the same point of view. The reference films also support the theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberguru (talk • contribs) 10:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Yes, that is a reason for deletion. Has this theory been published in any reliable sources yet? Doesn't sound like it. As you so admit, your cited books don't talk about this theory itself, but only a similar theory. Thus, this is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. howcheng {chat} 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a new theory that according to the article itself "has not been accurately explored by the scientific community yet". --Tikiwont 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is classified as paranormal so you dont need to delete it (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not? Only well-known paranormal topics are worthy to be mentioned in the Wikipedia. Science or paranormal, Wikipedia is not the place for publishing new ideas.— JyriL talk 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and Resurgent insurgent. If this is so new and so unknown that it has "little historical background or reference", then we shouldn't have an encyclopedia article about it. Furthermore, if we have no reliable sources which say that the "cited books of Trever James Constable" actually describe a similar topic, then making that assertion is original research and therefore streng verboten. Classifying as paranormal does not save this page — see WP:FRINGE. Anville 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious original research. — JyriL talk 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is nonsense and the idea isn't even new. H.G. Wells wrote a science fiction short story called 'Horror of the Heights' about huge, strange animals which lived in the clouds which, in his story, the first biplane pioneers started running into. Nick mallory 11:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. Someguy1221 22:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Note that User:Nima Baghaei has a history of advocating such material, in addition to Cyberguru's blatant WP:COI. Michaelbusch 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete and merge some of the content into Atmospheric Beast -- the sources given seem to fit there fairly well. DGG 06:54, 20 April 2007 (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.