Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Knight satellite


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Black Knight satellite

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article consists of nothing but contradictory and mostly discredited pseudoscience. None of the sources could be described as reliable and in any case all three state that the topic is a hoax or fabrication. It doesn't seem notable as a hoax so I'd suggest deleting.  W.  D.   Graham  20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I came across this while patrolling new articles & was going to PROD it but when I googled it I was surprised at how many hits it got. The original article took it as a for real object: I rewrote it. I think the Armagh planetarium is certainly a reputable source. I agree its pseudoscience: the article is about it as pseudoscience & I think the number of google hits demonstrates that its a notable bit of pseudoscience.TheLongTone (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS, Second Quantization (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm struggling to find much in the way of reliable coverage (although I could look harder). Note that there was a British rocket called Black Knight which will show up if you search for this; e.g. most of the results on Google books are about the rocket, though the main Google search gives more material on this "satellite". --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * keep notable pseudoscience is still notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a tautology. Second Quantization (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Read carefully, and don't split hairs. The wording might not be the best, but its clear what is meant: that pseudoscience that is widely believed might be notable. I don't believe in UFOs, but I would be a fool not to believe that there are people who do. A belief can be the subject of an article. There are, for instance, a number of articles on religions of one kind or another.TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * keep per Gaijin42. There is sufficient coverage to justify an article. The Black Knight satellite seems to be a combination of several different observations and theories, but joined together to have become an urban legend. This legend has had coverage since the 1960's. Martin 4 5 1  20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is enough coverage on it to make it notable, and we have reliable sources in the article. The theory is indeed pseudoscience; however, it is the theory that makes it notable, and all of the sources address it from that perspective.  It could be improved and better referenced, but I do not see grounds for deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Skeptoid is a great podcast but it's not reliable enough to use as the basis of an article; it's self published and limited by how well Dunning could research the topic in a week. is a blog. Are we seriously going to keep an article on the basis of two self published sources? Second Quantization (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a blog, but one hosted by Armagh Planetarium, a government-funded body which describes itself as Ireland's leading centre for astronomical education. So hardly self-published.TheLongTone (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Err, it's a planetarium and can describe itself any way it wants. I've heard of, and one would say it does quite a bit more for astronomy in Ireland than a planetarium for Children that receives funding for its cultural and leisure value. I'm sure it's a fine website and a fine blog piece, but lets not pretend that the blog is something other than it is; self published. Second Quantization (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its published by an institution (and a reputable one) not an individual. So, not self published.TheLongTone (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fringe coverage and very little of it. The best reference is the Armagh blog which comprehensively says that Black Knight is rubbish. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentAs does the article. Its a bit of pseodoscience: most sources ([like http://ufodigest.com/article/mysterious-black-knight-1119]) or Disneyland of the Gods by John Keel which apparently mentions it are ipso facto wobbly. The fact that an serious educational institution considers it worth debunking surely points to it being more than just another bit of random fruit loopery.TheLongTone (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, I suppose - the difficulty I've had with sources is that there was a legitimate UK-built rocket/satellite launch vehicle called "Black Knight" in the 1960s which we cover as Black Knight (rocket). Searching for "black knight satellite" brings up bucket-loads of coverage in reliable sources but most of it relates to the UK rocket, not the conspiracy theory. Adding the words "conspiracy theory" or similar greatly limits the source list. The sources provided aren't particularly strong and one legitimate organisation addressing the conspiracy isn't exactly "significant coverage". Until we have more to substantiate that this is a widely discussed conspiracy theory, I don't think it really meets our criteria. Stalwart 111  09:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep based on my Google search, this does appear to be notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep also based on a Google search. Orser67 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can reputable media reports be located? Can the article stand on its own with weasel-worded content such as the material on Van Daaniken and Tesla deleted? If not, perhaps this can still be merged with one of the UFO articles out there. Just because something gets a lot of Google hits does not mean it's worthy of inclusion. I just googled the phrase "Justin Bieber is a space alien" and Google identified 6.6 million hits. That doesn't mean an article on the topic needs to be made or the topic even should be addressed in Bieber's article. Is Black Knight discussed in any major magazines? Has CNN done anything on it - even a Jeannie Moos humor piece? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - satisfies GNG. The article cites at least one reliable, independent source devoted entirely to this subject. Skeptoid is a respected podcast, and if we ruled out articles that the author could research in a week, we wouldn't accept newspapers as reliable sources. It also cites some more sources, one of which (a TIME magazine article) I added. The planetarium blog is borderline, per USERG, but it is described as their "official" blog, so they endorse its contents. Note that the NFRINGE guidelines only require one reliable source: "A fringe subject ... is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." RockMagnetist (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - 11.2 million Google hits say it's a keeper. --uKER (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - all the people invoking Google hits should read GOOGLEHITS. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, the "many hits" claim completely ignores the extended commentary above. There are many google hits because there are many other (non-conspiracy theory) results for "black knight satellite", especially since a legitimate space agency had a very real rocket called "Black Knight" which was going to be used to launch satellites. None of those results relate (in any way) to this subject. Stalwart 111  02:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, there is also a real satellite called "Black Knight", launched last October. That probably accounts for further results even once the sounding rocket is removed. -- W.  D.   Graham  18:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Google hits are meaningless per Stalwart111 and RockMagnetist. The article seems to rely mostly on a blog and a podcast, which are not WP:RS. The TIME magazine article is not actually relevant to the topic. I can find no other relevant RS. Article fails WP:GNG. -- 101.117.56.61 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * merge and redirect to Donald Keyhoe who seems to have originated this. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The idea itself seems fairly obviously to be pseudoscience, but within the "fringe" community it's clearly something significant. We should therefore cover the topic, whilst making it quite clear within the article that no reputable scientist believes it's true. RomanSpa (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - is Skeptoid is a reliable source? The existing guidelines would say it is not because it is self-published. However, it cites sources, has won some awards, and is syndicated with five radio stations, one of which is hosted by the National Science Foundation. This seems like a time to ignore all rules. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment What's wrong with maintaining it as an "urban myth" topic? Unverified legends have always been valid parts of culture. Kortoso (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant by it not being "notable as a hoax" is that the hoax itself doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an article. If we had an article for every crank or fringe theory then it would lend far too much weight to these minority viewpoints. I believe that this is a case where the subject is not notable enough to warrant an article. -- W.  D.   Graham  18:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry I thought this discussion was from March 6th Valoem   talk   contrib  20:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 6 This article is erroneously listed as a discussion from the 6th of April. Valoem   talk   contrib  20:17, 15 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.