Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudbuster (2nd nomination)

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. Any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages Fritzpoll (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudbuster[edit]

An article on a fringe "technology" that contains no reliable sources sufficient to estabish notability or allow for verification of any of its claims. How long should unsourced articles be allowed to persist? Not certain, but two and a half years seems quite long enough. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect. Adequately covered in Orgone (notable), no need for this separate article. Verbal chat 18:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it should be a dab with a link to Orgone and Cloudbusting? Verbal chat 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps redirect people might well put this in the search bar, [1] [2] [3] it's even formed the basis of a well known song by kate bush, Cloudbusting, but it need only be a redirect and all covered in the orgone article; depending whether other people think Cloudbuster's worth its own. Sticky Parkin 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since all cloudbusters seem to operate on principles related to orgone, a redirect seems to be most appropriate. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I am finding good sources on this topic: [4], [5], [6], [7], [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=6622], [8], [9]. The list goes on! Cazort (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The artcle is in terrible shape, possibly as a result of being edited pretty roughly to deal with POV issues, possibly becuase it was awful to begin with, but the subject is notable and with effort the article could be saved. Artw (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and dab topic is notable and verifiable as shown by the sources above, but does not merit a standalone article, and can be efficiently merged into Orgone without overburdening that article. -Atmoz (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Orgone. Note both that merges can be done without AfD and that the relevant section on Wilhelm Reich is the best of the three treatments. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cloudbusting was only one aspect of Wilhelm Reich's work, and thanks to Kate Bush's song, may be the way people learn about it. The article is more than a stub at this point, and is in shape to be expanded further. I think it deserves an opportunity. Eauhomme (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orgone and dab Article establishes no notability of its own.--Sloane (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt i'm not opposed to a redirect, but this "technology" is already sufficiently covered in the orgone article. This article is unsourced entirely, so what on earth would be merged?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Subject is notable. User:Cazort is looking to add sources so there is no need for deletion. Caden S (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is already more than adequately covered in Orgone, Wilhelm Reich, and Cloudbusting, what makes it notable enough to have its own article? For example, are cloudbusters ever discussed in WP:RS without reference to one of those three things; or even just Orgone? Verbal chat 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and decide which should be merged into which? Barbie Doll into Toys or The Whopper into Hamburger? Sorry, wrong queue. As there is an ongoing effort to improve the article about a historical device that already approaches notability, it would be prudent to allow it to continue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If Barbie Doll was the only notable toy, or the whopper was the only way of manipulating hamburgers, then both of those redirects/mergers would make sense. Those analogies don't work. Verbal chat 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect. I don't see two articles for 'fondue' and 'fondue pot'. There is no context for a cloudbuster outside the discussion of orgone. Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the arguments laid forth in the previous AfD, sources and some clarifications regarding the claims should be included. As it stands and per the page history it isn't clear if it is meant to cause rainfall or prevent it. I wouldn't be against merging/redirecting into a 'Applications of' (with whatever disclaimers are felt necessary) section of Orgone though, provided that the material is allowed to incubate there. Unomi (talk) 14:29, 17 March 200 9 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I actually consulted this article last year when my co-worker was reading about Orgone Collectors. They're different things/technologies: Orgone (according to followers of Reich) is the force which underlays the entire universe, cloudbusting uses that force to control weather, Orgone collectors use that force for -- among other things -- psychological and physical health care of humans. Its also the source of the orgasm box gag in Woody Allen's Sleeper. While all this is completely unscientific, each has a distinct role in Reich's thought/science, and has a cultural importance far beyond their scientific value (which is nill). That much has been written about these -- independent of Reich -- popsongs have been written about this device/process, and there are innumerable people who think they are "developing" this "technology" and/or will sell you one, puts this far over any notability bar. The Orgone Collector box is more important to Reich, but it seems Cloudbusting has fascinated people since the 70s much more. If this were to be merged into Orgone (which would -- from Reich's point of view -- be like merging Weather control into Physics) you'd have to merge all the Reichian "technologies"/culture into Orgone. With the amount written on Wikipedia about Reich, that would be a article which we'd immediately have to split for size. T L Miles (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per the nom. We don't delete stuff cause it's not verifiable as being "true". We delete it if it is unverifiable that independent third party sources think it either exists or is still worth discussing, and if it doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Otherwise we'd have to next delete all articles about religious beliefs which we can't verify as "true" (which is all of them). T L Miles (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:This subject is notable and with effort the article should be saved. -Ret.Prof (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you oppose a redirect? Verbal chat 08:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Criteria for nomination no longer applies: Article is now referenced, and plenty of other references are available. -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the case, the references do not show notability outside of orgone, and as cloudbusters are already covered in depth in that article then this article should be redirected tere. Verbal chat 08:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.