Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmospheric beast


 * 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. It looks like the article could possibly be cleaned up, so I would reccommend that at least a month or so be given for people to do that before renomination. There are possible merge targets for this as well, but all that should be hashed out on the talk page. NW ( Talk ) 15:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Atmospheric beast

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

All references to notable authors/media are not actually related to the subject at hand; Carl Sagan never mentions these so called "hypothetical beasts"; None of the books mentioned use the name Atmospheric beast; dropping the name of those books is uncalled for... the creatures in those books are all SOLID or semi-solid, and the video game mentioned had a SOLID flying snake (not invisible). There is no notability, and the external links border on link spam. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. I don't know if Sagan used that term but for sure he talked about such hypothetical beings, see this video for example, and he developed the concept in this paper -these are just the first two references I came across. The article needs serious care, better sources etc. but the concept is notable enough. Maybe better merged in another article? Don't know what one could be best. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Sagan's theory of gas giants on Jupiter and gaseous planets equates to invisible beings in the Earth's atmosphere; Sagan simply posits that life could exist in a cloud of gas, not that the Earth's atmosphere could sustain life. Further, the earth's atmosphere has been extensively studied and flown in... surely someone would have seen/hit one of these supposed creatures if they existed. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article, in fact, does not talk of "invisible beings in the Earth's atmosphere", since it begins with Atmospheric beasts are hypothetical non-winged organisms which could live within the atmosphere of gas giants.; since Earth is not a gas giant I don't see from where your concern comes from. It talks of fictional Earth creatures within the definition but they're clearly and obviously referred as fictional. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-writed to address this issue. --Againme (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now it seems much more clear and much more worth keeping. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely non-notable term, with synthesized OR pop culture trivia thrown in, to boot. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (re-write) or merge. This is a very popular and used term within the UFOlogy and cryptozoology world. Check any website on this kind of issues.--Againme (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems the worst issue of the article is that it is confusing, merging together two separate kinds of hypothetical beings. I agree with the keep, but someone familiar with the term has to go and decide what's that beast. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, re-write, re-name and/or merge/redirect - Nom's arguments are pretty good for editing an article, but as pointed out by others here, the term is notable enough to warrant encyclopedic treatment. These are reasons for editing and improvement, not deletion: the term is neither a hoax nor unknown, nor made up by a guy in a basement. Also, while there seems to be some original research issues with the name, in that it should be sourced, pseudo-science and speculative science are all well covered and there is concensus for inclusion, a consensus I agree with. It could be merged into cryptozoology, but I am not sure..--Cerejota (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete NN Sympleko ( &Sigma;&upsilon;&mu;&pi;&lambda;&epsilon;&kappa;&omega; ) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete In need of fact checking, erroneous. 99.165.205.67 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) John Evans, Los Angeles — 99.165.205.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Inappropriate 117.194.5.20 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 117.194.5.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Inaccurate and Inappropriate 75.2.13.216 (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 75.2.13.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Inaccurate and Inappropriate. In need of fact checking, erroneous.
 * Delete Inaccurate and Inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.130.132 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)  — 173.3.130.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Ehm, whatever everyone thinks of the deletion, is this sequence of anonymous and nearly identical comments normal? --Cyclopia (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete Inaccurate and inappropriate.74.209.23.105 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 74.209.23.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Delete Inaccurate. Seriously needs to check the research.71.17.220.101 (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC) — 71.17.220.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Inaccurate and Inappropriate.173.67.13.49 (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 173.67.13.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to closing admin. IMHO a "delete" result would be tainted due to massive participation by SPAs. Recommend a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.