Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paraphysics

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 Keep after rewrite. Xoloz 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paraphysics

Paraphysics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Proded by Jimbo as 'abject nonsense on a stick', I'm undeleting this as per policy as the prod has been objected to on the grounds it may be 'notable nonsense on a stick'. No vote. --Doc^g 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep on the grounds that I've heard of it before and there are numerous books about the subject (see below). The use of the word "nonsense" is a bit confusing in this situation, since many people would call the subject of this article nonsense even though it is not nonsense in the Wiki sense of the word. --- RockMFR 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Additional information: A search on Google Books gives numerous results from reliable sources [1] --- RockMFR 05:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Those are books that contain the word paraphysics, frequently as a synonym for parapsychology. They're not necessarily books about paraphysics. And there are only 39 unique results, many of which are works of fiction or books from uber-small or vanity presses. Not what I'd call reliable. -- Vary | Talk 05:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Delete unreferenced substub which has no business having a table of contents. Three lines of content (one of which is a direct quote, two of which are unsourced claims), and a link farm for 'Quantum Magick' web sites. Words in the actual article - 78. Total number of external links and 'see alsos' - 40. Absurd. Article appears to be more an excuse for links than an attempt to explain the subject.

I've heard the term, too, but that doesn't mean it needs a wiki article. If someone who knows the subject feels like taking a stab at re-writing a real article, I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion, of course, but I can't even begin to determine notability or verifiability a non-article like this one. -- Vary | Talk 01:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Notable articles shouldn't be deleted just because they suck (which this one definitely does). --- RockMFR 01:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Before we can even deal with notability, the article has to be verified. This one isn't. But while we're on the subject of notability, how notable can a subject be when the top google hit is a free AOL member page? At most, the subject might rate a dicdef on wictionary, because it does seem to be true that some people use it to mean 'attempting to explain the paranormal scientifically.' -- Vary | Talk 03:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong KeepIf you ask any atheist, wich i believe most people today are, they would say that even god is nonsense. Should we delete the god article because of that? And anyone who is interested in paranormal, (wich you would agree to calling nonsense) would be highly interested in this subject. Please read this article from about.com, and visit Paraphysics Research Institute before you make any judgements. - openforbusiness
• Delete. The existence of organisations with 'paraphysics' in their name does not mean that their organisations and this term should be covered in an encyclopaedia. That requires reliable sources independent of those who coin the phrase in the first place, and so far all we have is the About.com link which doesn't actually mention the word 'paraphysics' anywhere. Article as it currently stands is a thinly-disguised spam directory. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources we could always rename the article to paranormal vs. physics if that would make you feel better? Its all the same, and after all this is a pretty big area of science. Paraphysics has 18,800 hits on google, and here's another interesting link. The deletion of this page would be a great loss for paranormal research of any kind.. And if you by any chance should be interested in books, they have a pretty wide range of choises at amazon.com.. 84 books to be excact. thank you. user:openforbusiness
  • Changing to abstain. I can't support deletion after the work Uncle G's done, but there still seem to be varying coinages of the word 'paraphysics' (which is, in the end, just someone adding the word 'para' to 'physics') and after reading the article I don't know why I should care about any of them; they all seem to be expounding pseudoscientific justification for varying degrees of New Age nonsense. I can't tell from the article whether any have any more importance than the others, and I'm confident that no-one is going to be able to do a better job of clarifying this than Uncle G, so I don't see this improving. (Though I can see it getting worse as POV-pushers get back to work on the article.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. First, reliable sources are everywhere: Amazon, Google, etc. Second, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that that subject should not be written about. Lets say that you don't believe in Jesus. Does that mean nothing should be written about it? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 03:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This isn't about who believes in what. The 'nonsense' comment in the prod referred, I think, to the content of the article, not to the subject. If I wrote a three line nonsense article about the queen of england, it'd still be nonsense, even if the subject was not. But the point is not that some people believe it's hooey, it's that there have been no reliable sources provided proving notability and verifying the article's statements. As I said above, the top google hit for the subject is an AOL member page. That's not what I call a reliable source. So, as I said, if anyone can make this article meet wikipedia policies before the AFD is up, providing verifiable sources, cleaning up the nonsense and making it something more than a dictionary definition, I'd be willing to reconsider my position. But if it isn't done in five days, it's not likely to happen once the AFD closes, so better to delete it and let whoever comes along next looking to write a real article start fresh than to let this unverifiable glorified link farm stay on wikipedia on the off chance that someone might replace it with a useful article. -- Vary | Talk 04:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • well if the first result that pops up in not a "reliable source", i would say at least 1 out og 18800 are pretty good ods. but i think what we need is an expert who can actually write something intelligent about this matter, and not just deleting it. cause i dont think that's gonna make it any better. then at least the next person who seeks to write something, will have a little something to start with, or, until he comes along people can have a little something to read, withouth having to google around for hours. - ofb
    • If you can find a reliable source on google that supports the text in this article, please do provide one. But saying 'there must be one somewhere' doesn't count. And if you think you can find someone who can write a sourced, verifiable article on the subject that proves its notability, then please do. But leaving this one in place hoping that someone will find some reliable sources for it won't make anything any better, either. We can't leave an unverified, unsourced article up 'so people can have a little something to read.' WP:V is not negotiable. -- Vary | Talk 04:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fittingly for the subject, the article is only barely coherent. If someone should feel so inclined, they can write an intelligible article on the topic later, but there's no point keeping this junk around until they do. Opabinia regalis 05:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• OK. I am now writing the article, and i will use the next couple of days to this. I am no expert, but i will write at least a little page that is verifiable. is this good enough? i found a page with very useful links btw. ofb
• Delete. Since Jimbo's prod, the article has changed from an abject nonsensical uncategorized and uncommented linklist to an abject nonsensical article structure with no discernible article. If this is notable, I'm not sure how to evaluate. --Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, random accumulation of unsourced nonsense. Sandstein 07:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Keep after creditable rewrite. Sandstein 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As already stated by others, almost all web-based uses of this word are synonyms for the paranormal. Even if the word was first used in the late nineteenth century, the definition given by the article is a neologism. The rest of the article is a collection of links to loosely-related concepts. Article contradicts itself -- states "Paraphysics is rarely associated with any kind of occult practise" yet over one third of the articles linked to are under the heading of "Occult." Fails WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability, WP:NEO. SWAdair 08:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep the new version. After UncleG's rewrite it is a completely different article. Wow, what a difference! Great job, UncleG. SWAdair 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per original prodder. Kavadi carrier 08:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless as it stands, not coherent, fails to meet any kind of verifiability or notability standards QuiteUnusual 09:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As it is now, the article is incorrect, and the subject is not all that notable to demand a keep in spite of that. To creator: you can copy the contents to your userspace if you are going to rewrite it. But, if so, first write a coherent and objective article, or just stub, and then copy to mainspace, recreating it. But with valid and referenced content. This is a subject demanding strict adherence to WP:V and WP:RS. Now it's a completely different article, nothing has left of the original one, except some links. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Try now. Uncle G 13:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Whoa, keep the transformed artifact. I never knew a word could be notable for escaping precise definition. :-) Kavadi carrier 14:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (see above) CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep articles about abject nonsense on sticks. —Cryptic 14:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The article is cringe-inspiring ugly; the subject is hudu guru nonsense. But apparently at least one notable publication has taken the time to refute it. That makes it a topic that may need to be referenced in the future.--Ling.Nut 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on a stick. That was quite a save. —Celithemis 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• go uncle G! thanks a lot dude, you rock like granite.. but can we just forget about this thing now?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.8.48.88 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep, although it's still (not knocking UncleG) rough. humblefool® 01:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is approvingly discussed by people like Brian Josephson and Anthony Leggett. I am going to add the relevant links. Stammer 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is completely irrelevant whether "paraphysics" is rubbish or not. This is a well known topic and deserves an article. McKay 13:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and give Uncle G a barnstar on a stick. Nice job. -- nae'blis 15:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This term has been in use for decades and I personally own several copies of the Journal of Paraphysics, the earliest of which dates back to the 70's. - Solar 15:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's no reason to cover parapsychology and not one of its sub-categories. Surely Wikipedia doesn't have to be exactly the same as other encyclopedias, which might edit out an article like this merely on the grounds that they don't want the expense of printing it, or it's merely a branch of another field. It is informative. But put the definition first, not the non-definition. Martinphi 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Removal from afd? If someone wants to discuss the article, discuss it at the article.. ofb, 89.8.43.197 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Interesting mailing list message here that might be relevant [2] (just for the hell of it). --- RockMFR 01:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I'm late to the party, I see, but the rewrite is a huge improvement. Only a 'weak' because I still can't sort out exactly how widely used the sense of the term described in the article is. And if the phrase 'quantum magick' finds its way back into the article, it had better bring a credible source with it. ;) -- Vary | Talk 05:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Barely passing through for me. The article itself is a tad away from utter incohorence, and could do with a complete paraphrase/rewrite. However, despite the murkiness of the content, it presents to be a notable and verified topic. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 11:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs attention, but who else will keep the parapsychologists company? Robovski 01:18, 8 November 2006 (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.