Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phenomena Research Australia

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. This debate comes down to WP:V, i.e. can this article be reliably and independently sourced. The consensus here is no, there are insufficient independent sources. I don't like to delete someone's hard work, so I am amenable to providing the text for the purpose of merging any reliably sourced bits into other appropriate articles. Kevin (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomena Research Australia[edit]

Phenomena Research Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:CORP ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-Extensively sourced, but my impression is none of the sources are independent of the subject or reliable. Reyk YO! 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Australian history entry, very strong Google domain [1], a Wikipedia's Main Page entry "Did you know?" T:DYK WP:DYK for 2007 April 30 See [2]. Vufors (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a google domain doesn't make you notable. Being in DYK doesn't make you notable, just interesting. I'm surprised that the amount of research that has gone into this article can't pull up a reference in a newspaper about the organisation, which might then meet WP:CORP. Go on, the truth is out there. Assize (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references establishes the organisation's notability per WP:ORG and it is full of original research and dubious claims. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do they exist (the group) yes, are they notable? No. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For above, If it exists, it is notable. Solid.124.181.171.132 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — 124.181.171.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • No. My goldfish exist too. They don't deserve an article. Notability is established by coverage in independent secondary sources. Assize (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like one of the oldest and largest extant UFO and Fortean investigative organizations in Australia should be notable ... but this is all self-sourced or primary sourced. I would just WP:SOFIXIT (along with multifarious other article issues), but the sourcing problem appears intractable with regards to notability. CSI does not list the group. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-commercial organizations "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive." & "Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated". An easy fit. 58.175.178.240 (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — 58.175.178.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Yes, but how does it satisfy "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" which is why the article is being considered for deletion. Assize (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of Google sources. A National Library Of Australia Call Number: Nq 001.942 listing. Even a Amazon search gets a result [3], Gee that is enough, so this is Notable. 124.180.23.63 (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — 124.180.23.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • This is not an argument for keeping. See the essay WP:GOOGLEHITS. All the hits are not independent secondary sources anyway. The reference in the book is a passing reference to the organisation. See note 1 in WP:N as to why it cannot be used. Assize (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge Lots of sourced material which, if not quite right in this form, could be usefully merged into Australian ufology. Deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Should be considerably condensed and merged into Australian ufology or an alternative integrated article. Bjenks (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If these can make it with less sources, International Miniature Aerobatic Club, Model Aeronautics Association of Canada, Indian CSICOP, New England Skeptical Society, The National Council Against Health Fraud, this page easily makes it. 202.161.73.61 (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 202.161.73.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • This is not a valid argument for keeping. See the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those articles could be deleted as well if nominated. The topic needs to meet either [[WP:N] or WP:CORP to remain. Assize (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is important, it meets the wiki requirements.WP:POINT.Zeanew (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — Zeanew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • WP:POINT is not an argument for keeping. It relates to how we behave in Wikipedia.Assize (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear delete for notability reasons. Daniel (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Valid. Interesting and important to australian wiki research. Covered by sources. L\LanceBaker (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — L\LanceBaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Yes it is interesting, but that is not a reason why it should be kept. See the essay WP:INTERESTING. What independent secondary sources are actually there. Surely there must a newspaper article on this organisation somewhere if it is so prominent. Assize (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep- Wikipedia is all about accumulating. It is not reasonable to discard information just because it does not suit an editor. Tom Butler (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument is not about discarding information. It is saying that the organisation isn't notable because it hasn't been written about in independent secondary sources. Assize (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the case for notability doesn't seem particularly compelling. Which sources are independent of the subject? — BillC talk 22:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone feeling the article should be kept could answer my question. — BillC talk 12:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep-"It is saying that the organisation isn't notable because it hasn't been written about in independent secondary sources." Hundreds, maybe thousands, articles don't fill this standard. And if some people feel that PRA (an institution decades old) isn't notable, then it's the same thing to say that Ufology itself isn't worth to being here (which I suspect is behind the "delete" votes and the shameless censorship of those that simply want to erase what one doesn't like or agree with). Australian Ufology wouldn't be as respected as it is without the efforts of PRA. Period.Wintceas (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. There are lots of articles which I don't like or agree with but I don't nominate to delete. This is not about Ufology (which would be a reasonable topic if there were sources) or erasing information. It is about Wikipedia being a reliable sources of information. Information has to be sourced back to independent verifable sources. There is simply no independent information about this organisation. Find it and I will change to a keep. Assize (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only reliable source I could find, a 2005 footnote in a (I think) pro-UFO book says, the PRA has "failed to publish their account in the broader UFO literature despite the passage of a decade!" So they aren't operating in the broader UFO community, to say nothing of the rest of the world. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You only need one to Pass the test, but here are more for you:
NEWSPAPER - By Paul Heinrichs, The Age, Melbourne, Australia April 5, 1997
BOOK - By Bill Chalker ISBN-13: 978-0743492867 - Jul 19, 2005 p50
BOOK - Fortean Studies - Vol 6 1999, ISBN 1 902212-207, p152, p154
BOOK - By Kelly Cahill 1996, HarperCollins, ISBN 0 7322 5784-0, p149, p185
BOOK - By Dwight Connelly 2004, ISBN 0-9677793-1-6, p92-99
BOOK - By Maximillien De Lafayette ISBN-13: 978-1434891433 - Mar 5, 2008 p324
JOURNAL - The Skeptic Vol 16 No 4 p29-30
JOURNAL - International UFO Reporter, September/October, 1994
US Archives - The early chapter of PRA called AFSIC (Aust) 1958 USAF Project Blue Book T1206 [4]Vufors (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NEWSPAPER - Civilian investigation in Melboure - (AFIC AKA PRA) The Melbourne Herald 31 Jul 1953 Vufors (talk)


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/Phenomena_Research_Australia&oldid=1138226048"