Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon Belt (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. Although it seems that a recreation from scratch by somebody not associated with this belief might have a better chance to be kept. Sandstein 16:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photon belt[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article started as a recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Photon Belt by a long since indef blocked user. It was given a second chance "on the condition that it retain a neutral point of view". The original text contains WP:OR and there are remnents in the current article. Most of the text is poorly sourced and of questionable accuracy. Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Photon_belt_or_band,_a_ring_maybe,_and_lots_of_other_crank_terms for prior discussion and context. The remaining trimmed material that is sourced is of dubious WP:GNG. The page is a magnet for fringe theories that are poorly documented in WP:RS and it has had persistent issues with WP:NPOV. --mikeu ^talk 10:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Maybe Speedy Delete. There's nothing new here to justify overturning old consensus. This is just someone who didn't like the consensus and did their own thing in spite of it. Perhaps redirect to 2012_phenomenon#Other_catastrophes where the topic is briefly mentioned. ApLundell (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As proposer I support deletion and agree it might qualify for speedy. --mikeu ^talk 20:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in two minds about this one, but I think I want to go with a WP:IAR keep. On the one hand, there seems to be a shortage of sources meeting Wikipedia's GNG. On the other, the sheer number of self-published and paid-for books on the subject by different authors over a long period of time shows that this is a well known belief.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] It is demonstrably nonsense, but I think Wikipedia ought to have some neutral coverage of it since readers will likely come across it. We cannot really expect academic sources to address the subject much unless proponents have first succeeded in getting academic publication (unlikely), at which point challenge would likely be forthcoming. The extant article is a vast improvement on the deleted one, the self-published sources are good for statements about what they themselves believe per WP:SELFPUB, and The Straight Dope source provides some critical balance. SpinningSpark 12:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. I have had a certain involvement with various New-Age types of people and events and groups connected with them, quite a long time ago now, and this idea is a real one within that realm - I encountered it a few times, and feel information on it could be useful to those researching New-Age beliefs. I do recall someone telling me that, depending on the exact position of the Earth at the time, the collision with the photon belt would result in either 5 days of light or 5 days of dark (I never quite understood the reason for that), and people were seriously exhorted to prepare for it, hoard necessary supplies, and generally approach it as a siege or disaster situation. This was in the 1990s, and the idea did seem to have a certain vogue at the time. I think the idea itself has zero credibility, but that's not really the issue; it is definitely a part of that broad spectrum of belief under the New-Age heading. I do feel the article could do with a lot of improvement, though, from someone knowledgeable on the topic. Unfortunately, I am not the one for that, because it is now a long time since I heard and read about this (some people I knew seemed to take it quite seriously), and I have forgotten much of the fine detail now. A lot of this stuff circulates by word-of-mouth and via literature, usually of an ephemeral nature, produced within small groups or movements, so I do realize that providing sources acceptable to Wikipedia will probably be more difficult for this than for many more "mainstream" topics. But, in general, when an article in Wikipedia is inadequate, I would support a default response of improving it rather than deleting it. Knowledge is precious, and sometimes very scarce, and should never be obliterated lightly. M.J.E. (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noted this contribution from LuckyLouie about the mini-bios in the footnotes section in the 2011 AfD, which are similar to the notes that were added in 2017 by an IP. I note that the same IP has been warned for copyvio (see user talk:72.68.87.199) at another article soon after and added a large amount of text in 2017, more than doubling the article by byte count. Just FYI... EdChem (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:DENY. This was a gaming of Wikipedia. If someone wants to workshop a new article using WP:RSes that are properly WP:WEIGHTed, let them. But better to start from scratch. Nothing worth saving in this incarnation. jps (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS, and WP:SALT. I hate gaming the system. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or REDIRECT to 2012_phenomenon#Other_catastrophes. Not enough WP:FRIND independent coverage to justify a stand alone article. What coverage there is [13] ties this belief to the 2012 phenomenon. (I'm not sure what other sources existed during the 2011 AfD, but I don't see 'em currently). - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm just not seeing the case that this stands out as a noteworthy bit of pseudoscience. It might merit a paragraph or so in another article, but that text should be written from scratch, given the problematic history and WP:OR concerns of the content here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. insufficiently sourced fringe material. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2019 (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.