Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs (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 delete. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs[edit]

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

This is a synthetic article collecting fringe theories. No independent sources connect all of the examples amalgamated here. Individual points are encyclopedic, but are correctly discussed on the articles devoted to the subjects that are on the individual points. jps (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a WP:SYNTHESIS of personal ideas lacking citation to reliable independent sources and a WP:POVFORK of UFO religions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR and WP:GNG. Article been tagged for improvement for half a decade, and have not improved in that time... let it go. WegianWarrior (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the Jung stuff belongs in the UFO main article, or Jung's - or, if he wrote enough and it were notable enough, its own page. He's obviously notable, and the stuff from his book has me kinda interested. But everything else is a mish-mash of mostly unsourced thoughts people had. I wish the historical stuff were sourced though... I am oddly curious about some of that. Come on fringie-friends! You get to have space here if you write good articles! Dcs002 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He's obviously notable, and ..." Not everything a notable person does has due weight to be somewhere, Second Quantization (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right. Obviously my curiosity is irrelevant too, but my intent was to encourage the people who really work hard in the decidedly uphill battle of getting fringe material published here to think in terms of relocating what good material might be worth salvaging from this unacceptable article. I had a look, and the book is covered briefly on the Jung page. As it was one of his last publications (though the only one mentioned), I think it might be significant enough to be expanded with the small bit of material covering that book in this article, which makes no supernatural or extraordinary claims, only hypotheticals, unambiguous speculations, and questions. Possibly for that very reason (my speculation only), the crowded UFO page only lists the book in its bibliography. They have their own importance expectations and evaluation process, and they're doing fine without my sticking my nose in. :P (I'm not usually a welcome presence to fringe theorists in fringe debates.) Nice to see they considered the Jung book though. Dcs002 (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been a mess for years. No reliable sources found or ever added. Goblin Face (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:SYNTH article. Second Quantization (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic WP:SYNTH and has no place here. ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable source in the article at all. Seems like a pure synth essay. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2014 (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.