Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unexplained Research

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained_Research

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Unexplained_Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The context of the subject is ambiguous. Chad Lewis' article is completely unrelated. Mere promotion/advert article. Harsh (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability is reached if its been in 2 or more independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. IMO "trivial" means they are not the focus of the article but are merely mentioned in it. Non-trivial is when the article is devoted to the subject in a way that is more than just an announcement or passing along information, rather something that is genuine journalism reporting. The links by Ritchie333 above and the Leader-Telegram I posted below seem to meet that requirement (actually I didn't look carefully at all Ritchie333's links but saw one or two which is enough including the Leader-Telegram below, but we can go through them one by one if needed.) Green Cardamom (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check again, new sources added. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked again, and stand by my !vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like a PR release, and is also one huge WP:COPYVIO cut and pasted from here and here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So delete the copyvio and make it a single-sentence article with 12 sources to establish notability. The point of AfD is to determine if there is a place on Wikipedia for this subject. The article content is beside the point in AfD, the only thing that matters is sourcing. There are now five sources independent of the subject. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not clear what the article is about exactly, but it would seem it's about the kind-of-organization Unexplained Research WP:ORG or maybe WP:AUTHOR it's not clear, needs to be fufilled. Currently the sourcing is inadequate; it's mostly primary with some slow news coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only need two sources to meet Notability requirements. There are now five sources that are independent of the subject. On the topic of paranormal, it's going to be slow news day. But these articles are dedicated to the subject, they are not trivial mentions in an article about something else. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "TV appearances" turn out to be local public-access, the "radio shows" turn out to be local community stations, the "public appearances" turn out to be free lectures at local libraries...er, have these guys gotten any media coverage outside of a small corner of north western Minnesota? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources:
-- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First link doesn't work for me. [1] One line mention. [2] one line mention. [3] is the website itself so I'm not sure why you are adding that. [4] passing mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:20, 22 October 2012 (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/Unexplained_Research&oldid=1138749392"