Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unexplained booms

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of unexplained booms[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic of this list is very unclear. How does the author defines what a "boom" is? If a supersonic aircraft flies in the sky and nobody notices it, is that an "unexplained boom"? Also maybe some of them are unexplained according to some but explained according to others (for instance, most people will just assume it's an aircraft even if they didn't see it). How do we choose which "booms" we include in this list? For all these reasons, I think this list is not encyclopedic because it doesn't have any clear criteria. Laurent (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think anyone would be unclear about what a 'boom' is. An 'unexplained boom' is very simply a loud sound that has not been explained, according to the references given. If an 'unexplained boom' needs to be more clearly defined then that's something that can be fixed by editing the lead (although I do see the futility of trying to define something that is unexplained in the first place). And the criteria for inclusion would be its mention as such in a reliable source, usually the media. If another source manages to explain the boom then obviously that boom should no longer be listed here. But as of now all these entries are clearly sourced, and I think it's certainly taking a step in the right direction away from the less specific "List of unexplained sounds". -- œ ^™ 10:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess by "boom", the author means sonic boom but is it really encyclopedic to list all the so-called unexplained sonic booms? I mean each time someone doesn't turn the head fast enough to view the aircraft, we're going to have an "unexplained sonic boom", right? It really doesn't feel that we need an actual list for such a strange topic. Or perhaps, whoever created this list should explain why this topic is notable or what's interesting about it. Laurent (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but not everyone's hearing of a mysterious boom is going to be reported about in the media. That's whats making the items on this list notable, the fact that they've received media attention. It's not meant to be an exhaustive list of every single unexplained boom.. although, I can see your point about having a list for a strange topic such as "Unexplained booms" which probably isn't a notable, encyclopedic phenomenon in and of itself. What's interesting about it is the fact that it's unexplained, I guess. It seems the author is indiscriminately choosing a topic that's reported on in the media and then listing the individual reports, and what ties it all together as a notable topic is the fact that they're all unexplained. I dunno, I still say keep for now but I'd like to hear the list creator's argument too. -- œ ^™ 12:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-sourced article whose only problem seems to be the title, although it's consistent with the way the news media chooses to describe these events when it reports them. How does the author define what a boom is? I guess from all those headlines from reliable and verifiable publications whose editors like to say BOOM!!!!! Mandsford 18:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this article has a confusing title it does not seem to fail any of the following Criteria[1]] as a matter of fact I am impressed with how well sourced it is. Remember we can always move an article if we are concerned about its title. Sincerely Venustas 12 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Rename to List of unexplained booms in the USA, and then keep per Mandsford.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information should be added to this describing each one. Dew Kane (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a worldwide list, if kept it needs to be renamed, since currently it is highly biased as it explicitly states it is about the US, but sits at a non-US title. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure this list is very informative at the moment, as it simply links to the locations, not articles about the events. Wouldn't a better article be simply 'Unexplained boom' which could then include a list? If this phenomenon is as widespread and widely reported as the sources indicate, then surely its deserving of an article of its own?--Korruski^Talk 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs renaming or increased scope - the intro clearly says "in the USA" so this should be in the title. I've come across various articles dealing with unexplained sonic booms in the past so it's certainly notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news covers these. Dream Focus 21:25, 13 November 2010 (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.