Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet Research Group

Add links
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 merge to Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Research Group[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Comet Research Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There has been a lot of buzz around certain pseudoarchaeology claims associated with this group. However, the group itself as a group does not seem to be notable in the sense that there are almost no independent, reliable sources written about the group. For whatever reason, there just has not yet been the notice we would require to write a neutral summary of this group's work because, well, the group is fringe. WP:NFRINGE asks us to look for sincere and significant sources upon which to base our content. As it is, we have puff pieces, press releases, the group's own say-so, and brief mentions in articles that are talking about certain claims the group has made. Unless and until serious sources about the group are created, I just do not think Wikipedia can host an article that will be up to our standards. jps (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur. If there is a choice between allowing unsourced claims and deleting the article, then it should be deleted.
The only reason it exists is because certain users wanted to use wikipedia as a platform to discredit the CRG. A collaboration between Doug Wells and Hoopes to push unsupportable claims. Once those unsupportable claims are challenged, and found to not stand up to scrutiny, there isn't much left to justify an article. Incendiex90 (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note this must leave a redirect and retain most of the content. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Younger Dryas article as suggested. Sources here include an article about a theory being on Jeopardy and small tidbits, nothing substantive. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. jps, deletion seems to be a cheap way to avoid documenting the pseudo-scientific nature of CRG. No wonder Incendiex90 supports deletion. This move smells because we should document the group's nature. Parity of sources covers this subject, so the existence of a few scientific sources does the job. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent a few hours combing through the sources. Most of the sources don't come right out and say what CRG actually is including the primary sources that identify associated ideas as pseudoscientific or pseudoarchaeology (these sources typically sidestep the question CRG entirely and I can't find any article, paper, or even threadroll that goes into an explanation of how this group actually was set up and when). I sympathize with the hope that Wikipedia can be used to document this group, but I don't think we're the right venue for that given the dearth of serious in-depth sources. Try RationalWiki instead, I would say. jps (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several recommendations for merging this article into Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Which part(s) do you think should be moved over? Joyous! | Talk 04:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The CRG is the primary advocate of the YDIH, and advocating the YDIH is the primary reason the CRG exists. I think pretty much the whole article could be slotted into the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#History. – Joe (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. I think this article was created in good faith, but the lengthy discussions of WP:NPOV on the talk page have revealed that there really isn't enough substantial coverage to go on. – Joe (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem with merging with the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis page is that the scope of the CRG is larger than the YDIH. The CRG's Tall el-Hammam airburst paper is the most widely read paper of 2021 according to Altmetric, and it is the first paper that is completely attributable to the CRG, including the funding source. If CRG was merged with YDIH, how would discussion of the Tall el-Hammam airburst be justified in its new home? Proxy data (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly a drawback, but I think you can still retain it introduced with e.g. "in a related paper by CRG members...". The two are drawn from the same wider theory of coherent catastrophism, even if it's a different impact. It's also covered on Tell el-Hammam, of course. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is a drawback, but I think that the appropriate way to discuss the funding is through Tell el-Hammam's section and then link to the relevant subsection in YDIH. jps (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be merged into the article on the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comment that the Comet Research Group only present "puff pieces, press releases, the group's own say-so, and brief mentions in articles that are talking about certain claims the group has made" is not realistic. They have many publications in major peer-reviewed journals such as PNAS - who Wikipedia list as "PNAS is the second most cited scientific journal, with more than 1.9 million cumulative citations from 2008 to 2018." So the grumble that their work is only pseudo science is not true unless the majority of peer reviewed articles in PNAS is also pseudo science. Wikipedia's deletion criteria only lists one of 14 that might apply: # 14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. I would hope that serious scientific discussions would be worthy of listing in an encyclopedia. Science is not meant to be consensus driven nor a popularity poll. Science is about proposing theories that better explain the observations. The CRG does that very well, even if you do not like their theories. BurgRes (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not understand the argument? It's that the sources about the group are scarce. I make not judgement as to how many sources about other things the group itself has created. jps (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 26 November 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comet_Research_Group&oldid=1125380936"