Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudbuster


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cloudbuster

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

Meaningful content can be merged to orgone. The "device" itself has not received notability aside from trivial mention in a Kate Bush song, a reference in a Terry Gilliam movie, and in orgone true-believer's self-published fantasies. A google search reveals a lot of woo-woos building these devices, but no real reliable sources are forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Redirect after delete to Orgone. No suitably sourced material on this page to merge, and contains WP:OR, so the page could just be deleted and then the redirect placed. Maybe dab with the more famous Kate Bush song? Verbal   chat  17:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - im the article creator, and to tell you the truth I created this article over 2 years ago. I don't rememeber if I had any better sources than the ones on this page now; i have not edited it for such a long time and I dont feel motivated to do any research. I have no objections or aguments against deleting this article based on the nominators reasoning re: lack of WP:RS and WP:V Smith Jones (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This particular expression of Reichian nonsense is notable enough for seperate consideration. DGG (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - an assertion fo notability r quies adequate sourcing. I hoep you understand outr concerns. There is no source here, only a link to a uTube video, which is inacceptsable. Smith Jones (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This Reichian device is notable enough to have a recognized museum devoted to it and similar works by the same Mr.Reich. Whether you agree with it's effects or not, it's claims are supported by a real brick and mortar place and organisation. It's not a made-up fantasy sword from a forgettable game, this is device that is historical enough to consider keeping. It is also controversial and noteworthy on it's government action merits alone. JER (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Orgone, omitting the obvious WP:OR and sourcing the little bit that is left (delete would be fine if I/anybody do/es not find any sources before this discussion closes). This application can be treated perfectly adequately at the parent concept. Spot-checking the archives did not reveal a better version, though there was some mention of a Rolf Alexander. - Eldereft (cont.) 08:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether it's real or not, this device is well known enough to have appeared in the song and movie, and as such it stands up independent of the main article on the orgone theory.  It is also described in Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies book IIRC.  An unreferenced but improveable article on a valid subject: this nomination strikes me as an ultimatum to improve it or else, and there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fads discusses orgone, orgone accumulators, and Reich a fair bit, but I only find cloudbusters in an endnote. Science: good, bad, and bogus by the same author also treats Reich and orgone, but not cloudbusters or rainmakers. This to me indicates that the hierarchy of prominence for WP:SPINOUT would go: orgone --> orgone accumulators and orgone-based devices --> cloudbusters. Or, since the applications only make sense in terms of orgone and that page is only 20 kB, we can treat everything in the one place where it makes the most sense. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd like to see some sources though. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2008 (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.