Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arecibo reply

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arecibo reply[edit]

Original research into a "crop circle" that has received NO notability outside of crop circle enthusiast circles. Violates fringe theory notability guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The requirements of WP:FRINGE are not met. RayAYang (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGE obviously. And my ability to suspend belief in the laws of physics was not long enough to read the entire article. - Atmoz (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though the aerial picture looks pretty neat. There might be a merge target for a brief (and sourced) mention somewhere in cereology, but Arecibo message does not need it. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RETAIN. The nomination betrays its blatant bias in description, since it argues that those who take the subject seriously are by definition to be excluded. Naked POV. I know from personal exposure this has a prevalence in popular culture, the problem being that those hustling its deletion acknowledge the selection bias of their own choice of study. The described argument is like contending that articles on obscure Simpsons characters are not treated in peer-reviewed publication. Moreover, the author declared himself on wikibreak, and it appears his absence is being abused; delete-noticing someone who's away smells dishonest to me. As importantly, the notability criteria are mitigated by the fact that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and I've seen not just stubs but lots of good competent work foolishly wasted in biased early deletion that had to be recreated from scratch later and DID meet criteria. This article is clearly a work by authors trying to take it seriously and should be given fair hearing instead of ambushed by predjudiced dogmatics without fair opportunity for defense. Chris Rodgers (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few links including the SETI disclaimer; you may consider the obscurity argument refuted, regardless of your own opinions; if you reread the Fringe criteria, your own agreement is not a permissible factor, and your chosen selective ignorance of the field does not qualify you regarding notability, please reread them. Atmoz, I assume the "laws of physics" you refer to are the time constraints placed by c on message travel time, but your straw man assumptions are a fallacy, ignoring e.g. the obvious possibility that the reply could have been created from craft monitoring the planet locally; I hope you don't regard the application of logic to the existence of possible alternatives original research, but you really should read reasonably well-constructed articles in their entirety before arrogating to yourself the competence to vote on their deletion, you only betray your unscientific ignorance and bias otherwise. I assume we can next expect dismissal of all articles on religion, however popular, as "scientifically unfounded" next? And my other points above also remain. This determination should be made on merit rather than vote count, as the grounds of objection are falling out from underfoot, and good pro ones are in place. Chris Rodgers (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chris Rodgers. __meco (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2008 (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.