Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmospheric beast (3rd 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Atmospheric beast
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously used WP:PROD but the OP removed in 2009 and I just noticed R3ap3R (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and develop. I don't know about this topic or ufology in general but i rather think i read somewhere about these lurking, in some sci-fiction i read, and the topic seems interesting, even if it is only a fictional conceit.  Per several commenters in the first AFD the topic seems significant but should be edited.  There was concern expressed that the article reflected synthesis of pop stuff, and that mention of Sagan and others was name-dropping when they didn't use the exact term, but there were some answers given to part of that concern, and the article was edited some. -- do  ncr  am  00:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Topic is not notable enough for its own article, "atmospheric beast" is not a phrase used by independent RS sources. (Note that a phrase Carl Sagan once offhandedly uttered on a TV show does not constitute a scientific hypothesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete We should not be keeping articles on the basis of rumor that there may be something mentioned about this in a science fiction book somewhere. jps (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete article can't make up its mind if this is hypothetical or fictional; no evidence it's notable as either. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Guy, if this was purely about a fictional or legendary creature (like Orcs or a Minotaur), I think there would be justification to keep it as there are plenty of articles on fictional or mythological creatures. But trying to rationalize that these beasties are real makes some of the claims ridiculous (they are lighter than air but are carnivorous? so, an air-based digestive system?) and that warrants a delete. I could see a recreation if it was clear these are fictional animals. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a fun thing for Carl Sagan to shoot the breeze about - but it looks like it was just a cutesy 'what if' to be interesting. I like cutesy 'what ifs' - but it's not a notable subject. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable theme, primarily in science fiction. However nix undue emphasis on the idea that this is real.--Pharos (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit more research on this, and have surprisingly found Sagan actually co-wrote a scientific article on this in 1976. I also have found some more examples of scientifuc speculation from others, and of SF use.--Pharos (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. What is the source of the term "atmospheric beast", is it from Ufology?  Other, possibly better options, might be "living balloon" or "floater" or "gasbag" or "Jovian". --Pharos (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no use of "atmospheric beast" by reliable sources. Internet pages written by fringe proponents don't count. And the Sagan paper is specific to Jupiter, so it belongs at Jupiter, not in an article about generalized mythical atmosphere-dwelling beasts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The hypothesis is real, it may seem like a joke but it did exist. It was taken seriously by only a handful of fringe proponents so reliable sources will be almost non-existent for the topic. The only reliable source I know that discusses it briefly is by the skeptic Ronald Story who discusses the hypothesis on one page of his book, apparently it was known as the "space animal" hypothesis. The topic is not notable enough to have an entire article to itself and as there are no reliable sources it should be deleted. I have no idea where atmospheric beast came from or how this article lasted so long. BTW the stuff from Patrick Moore or those other writers should be removed, that is original research. The term "atmospheric beast" is not used in their papers. This is very much a fringe UFO idea. Goblin Face (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2014 (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.