Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element 115 in popular culture


 * 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. The discussion was clear that the subject did not meet site guidelines for an independent article. A significant portion of those opining favored merging to the Lazar article, however, I consider that position to have been overcome by the lack apparent agreement that there is no content here to be merged. Under these circumstances, a redirect is not needed to preserve the attribution history, and the title is an implausible search term. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Element 115 in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A vague article about a fictional 'element' supposed by conspiracy theorists to be somehow linked to UFO propulsion. The 'popular culture' title seems to be a guise for claiming notability for an otherwise non-notable topic: there are no sources cited which actually indicate it has any real significance as a subject of popular culture AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pretty self-explanatory why this needs to be deleted. Can somebody see if this is a candidate for speedy deletion? -- NINTENDUDE 64 21:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article is plenty of reliable sources for all its current content. The references are right and plainly related to the article and its contents. The topic (Element 115 related to UFO’s, conspiracy theories, to fiction, etc.) is completely notable in many popular cultural references as anyone can see easily checking in Google. The arguments used for this nomination are totally incorrect and without any fundament. They apparently were done by whom never really read the references or more probably never had interest enough. Also the sequence in which this nomination happened reveals a complete lack of good faith (for instance this can be seen just checking the absurd summaries in ‘’Element 115 in popular culture’’ article left over there by nominator). And obviously this article is not completed, it is just being written in its beginning; task that should be also continued by whom started the article. Eka-bismuth (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "should be also continued by whom started the article"? I don't think Wikipedia has such a policy... Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was meaning good faith/will. Nonetheless Wikipedia has explicit rules for cases pretty much like yours. Please read Creating "In popular culture" articles – item 3. Eka-bismuth (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am actually looking at this article often – that's why I edited it several times. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable lunacy.Not even notable pseudoscience Edison (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge in Bob Lazar and mention in ununpentium changed: Cycl o pia  talk  10:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC) As weird and lunatic it is, it seems it is indeed a notable conspiracy theory/fringe theory. Several book sources linking element 115 to UFOs can be found -this means that the theory is widely discussed. Among these, some seem to discuss the theory from an outside point of view: The History And Use of Our Earth's Chemical Elements: A Reference Guide, page 360: "It seems that element 115 (ununpentium) caught the interest of the UFO conspiracy- theory culture of pseudoscience. One advocate stated that the "sports model" of a flying disk used ununpentium-1 15 for fuel that "stepped up" to ununhexium." -unfortunately this is seen in the Gbooks search results but full page is not available. Another book on scientific discussion of UFO theories discusses the element 115 theory. -- Cycl o pia  talk  23:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC) - However it seems that the origin of the theory comes all from Bob Lazar and it is nearly always discussed in context to his theories. Therefore a merge seems appropriate, with a substantial paragraph there. Being element 115 and ununpentium both nearly the only reasonable search terms for the theory, and being element 115 a redirect to ununpentium, I think a mention there is necessary, making it clear the real and fictional element 115 have completely different properties, and linking to the main mention in Bob Lazar. -- Cycl o pia  talk  10:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the material found by this search is almost exclusively referring to Bob Lazar's conspiracy theory regarding 'element 115' - there appears to be nothing of any real significance beyond this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With a bit of more attention, it seems you are right. I will edit my !vote accordingly. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Also, nominating an article clearly in the work less than 24 hours from its creation sounds a bit bad form to me. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Bob Lazar and Delete (no need for redirect) to Ununpentium (via Element 115). No reason why there can't be a "popular culture" section added to that article. The sources would seem to justify a small section covering references to it in various conspiracy theories and the like. I don't think they are enough to justify a strangely-titled standalone article though. Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment:It seems to be the idea of Bob Lazar so maybe it could be merged there. It has nothing at all to do with the real element Bhny (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be totally inappropriate because "Lazar" only is related to "UFO/some-conspiracy stuff". Keep in mind that Element 115 in popular culture article encompasses a number of cultural references such as UFO’s, conspiracy theories, fiction, games, "popular" science, etc. Eka-bismuth (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, well in that case, my merge suggestion wouldn't work. Merge... somewhere else. If not, Delete. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Materials science in science fiction, perhaps? Double sharp (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. On the contrary. May be not the best solution, but for while your thought about a merge section in Ununpentium is feasible. The problem would be to have a section too big over "Ununpentium", because this could happen eventually (regard the scope of this theme). Materials science in science fiction article also suffers with the same problem and others, for instance "fiction" and "UFO" are not synonyms at all, as well as "fiction" and "conspiracy theory" have distinct meanings. Therefore this latter article is pretty inappropriate. The best solution in my opinion is keep the article. Eka-bismuth (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ..."fiction" and "UFO" are not synonyms - Noooooo! Don't feed the trolls! Ha ha. Having a look at Materials science in science fiction, there's already a substantive section on this topic. If any more is added to it then a  {{main|  tag would probably be justified, with a standalone article. Hmm... What to do? What to do? Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please show us your grammatical dictionaries and other reliable sources demonstrating your claim and may be we will think about. Eka-bismuth (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think something was lost in translation. I was trying to be funny, thus the "Ha ha" at the end. They are, of course, NOT synonymous. My point was that pointing that out, specifically... Anyway, never mind. Was meant to be a joke. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Sorry also, my stupid mistake.Eka-bismuth (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All good, no worries! {{Smiley|tongue}}. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This article was made entirely of content moved from Eka-bismuth's additions to Ununpentium, so the result of the discussion here would probably also have an impact on that section of Ununpentium. (However, this has nothing to do with the real element, and so probably shouldn't be merged there.) Double sharp (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to a new article, Transuranium elements in popular culture, which would explain the popular culture of all transuranium elements. As it stands, there is not enough to write about for each element to have its own popular culture article, but when combined, there is certainly enough, and each element would only need a summary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It might accumulate lots of unsourced entries, though. For instance, plutonium has most probably been mentioned a very large number of times (which is why such a section doesn't exist in the Pu article – see Talk:Thulium). Double sharp (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Most of this article isn't on the topic of Element 115, but is more related to Bob Lazar himself. That information can easily enter the Bob Lazar article. Also, Materials science in science fiction contains even more popular culture references to Element 115 that are not listed here. Double sharp (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not correct. Element 115 has a lot of cultural references (read above). It is expected all these stuffs to be eventually incorporated in the article. Regarding this, makes little sense to create/merge another article still bigger than this and even adding other elements. The best solution still is keep it. Eka-bismuth (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, element 115 has many cultural references. The question is whether many of them are notable enough or just trivia. Materials science in science fiction gives even more that don't satisfy the criteria at WP:IPC. The element 115 UFO conspiracy theory, while mentioned in one external source (which is giving an overview about the elements in general anyway), doesn't seem to have had any real-world impact either. Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you want to mean; nonetheless...: First that notability is a fact (-meaning: existent in this topic and- as we can see already showed above), secondly your latter observation really doesn’t matter: that is, while the contents are originated from legitimate references and right related to the article, as plainly is the case, Wikipedia does not discuss the merit of these contents ( this would be equal to enforcing bias therefore avoiding any possible bias). Just like that. Eka-bismuth (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia does not discuss the merit of these contents"? What do you mean by that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be equal to enforcing bias Okay,... anyway the above thought was about avoiding bias. Do you want to frame the contents of the articles according to your own subjective opinion? We expect not. Eka-bismuth (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you aren't making sense. Am I right in assuming that English isn't your first language? You seem to have problems in making yourself understood. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Eka-bismuth: Your definition of "bias" seems to include notability tests... Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A little better now? Next time I will do some revision ... Eka-bismuth (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit your comments after they have been responded to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry. I thought I was doing what you both were asking. I am still learning the "wikiprotocols"; may be after some years hopefully I will do better. Eka-bismuth (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No – by this definition, removal of non-notable things is equivalent to enforcing bias against them. BTW, it's better if you don't edit the comments once they've been replied to, but simply use strikethroughs so that the old version is still visible. Double sharp (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are sliding over rules which belong to Wikipedia’s common sense. So, may be you should stop to ask me better explanations about these, and read for yourself the Wikipedia’s rules. Anyway here is a replay of these two points: "Notability is a fact (-existent in this topic and-), it was already showed above." Other thing is: "Wikipedia does not discuss the merit of content (therefore avoiding any possible bias) since this content is originated from legitimate references and plainly related to the topic." Eka-bismuth (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeating something that doesn't make sense doesn't make it more understandable. I'll ask you again: is English your first language? You seem to have a poor grasp of it - and editing an English-language encyclopaedia clearly requires competence in the language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are not third-party sources (i.e. sources which are not related at all to the topic they are covering). That is the reason for the lack of notability of this subject (a reason given at Notability), and not whether the sources are reliable. If we were to follow your definition of bias, then we would have to include every single popular culture reference because they can obviously be found in sources related to their topic (but cannot be found in third-party sources), as not doing so would be enforcing bias against them, which would be absurd. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The presence of third-party sources is very useful to any article (in fact you should include them in your next contributions to this article), however this is not a prior condition. Articles without third-party sources are also totally acceptable (as you know). Eka-bismuth (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read Notability: "...if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Double sharp (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will! Thanks for this clarification (I have appreciated it). Nonetheless I guess this refers to finished articles. If such rule was ruthlessly applied, then the whole Wikipedia would be unfeasible (remember: sometimes just ignore all rules). For instance think about the stubs and most new articles; in fact currently this article is almost a stub. Also remember that although I had previously agreed (and I still do), were you who agreed to this new article and created it at recent past. Eka-bismuth (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a finished article – see Wikipedia is a work in progress. Double sharp (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent note! That's exactly what supports and certificates my point. Eka-bismuth (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't permit content that doesn't meet our policies and guidelines, even if an article would be very short without it. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into Transplutonium elements in popular culture or transuranium ones. Oppose merging back into the ununpentium article (ununpentium has nothing to do with the "element 115" used in popular references). Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, more widely, Chemical elements in popular culture (which would allow all the elements)? Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * However, such a list would attract a lot of one-off mentions in video games, conspiracy theories, etc. that have never been covered by external sources. That's why we don't have any popular culture sections in elements articles – see Talk:Thulium. Double sharp (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * copy material to Bob Lazar and delete This is, quite blatantly, a component of a fringe theory, and not popular culture. Lazar's theory should be documented as such in his article, but this article needs to be deleted because its subject (that is, pop cultural material) does not exist; it's a WP:COATRACK to hide that this is a real crackpot theory and not fiction per se. Mangoe (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Even putting aside that it is very poorly written, it does not even come close to passing the standard for notability. King of Nothing (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * copy material to Bob Lazar and delete I agree completely with Mangoe (talk)and to quote him "This is, quite blatantly, a component of a fringe theory, and not popular culture. Lazar's theory should be documented as such in his article, but this article needs to be deleted because its subject (that is, pop cultural material) does not exist; it's a WP:COATRACK to hide that this is a real crackpot theory and not fiction per se.". King of Nothing (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge contents to materials science in science fiction and Bob Lazar (but not ununpentium), then delete per AndyTheGrump. Double sharp (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to Delete, as there's nothing non-trivial to merge that's already elsewhere. Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify my role in the creation of this article: Eka-bismuth originally added this material to ununpentium (where it clearly doesn't belong, having nothing to do with the real element 115), and I moved it to this separate article (which Nergaal suggested in WT:ELEM). I did not write any of the content of this article. Double sharp (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is not only about Lazar. It is about cultural references of the Element 115. Lazar is just one topic related to the topic. Keep in mind that Element 115 in popular culture article encompasses a number of cultural references such as UFO’s, conspiracy theories, fiction, games, "popular" science, etc. Besides, this article is just beginning, it is not complete; in fact it requires wide expansion. Eka-bismuth (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure there are many one-off mentions of this particular element from video games and other sources, some of which can be found at Materials science in science fiction; however, these don't satisfy any of the criteria found in "In popular culture" content, and are just trivia that shouldn't be included even in that article. Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously future contents should be included in the article only when suitable to the guidelines. However till now the criteria that support the current article are satisfied. Furthermore regarding those mentioned policies; they state that your manifestos done in this debate counteract repeatedly the WP:IPCA policy (item 3; last paragraph). Eka-bismuth (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The content in this article is either trivia or is already covered elsewhere (i.e. Bob Lazar), and is written more clearly there anyway. WP:IPCA is not policy, it is an essay; besides, people are already removing what they perceive as trivia from the article in an effort to take responsibility for it and prevent it from being bloated with trivial, non-notable references (WP:TRIVIA, WP:IPCEXAMPLES), and are being reverted by you, with edit summaries like "Added back text and references, which were widely/unconstructively corrupted or removed to fit personal opinions. Please see WP:BIAS." that reflect a lack of understanding of policy (you are acting as though you owned the article, and you've also stated that "Bands with albums released are notable", which is not correct – see WP:CSD and WP:NM) and also that you don't actually read the essays you link to (WP:BIAS is about systemic bias on Wikipedia, not bias against popular culture topics). Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Chemical elements in popular culture or Fictional references to chemical elements or something like that, with two main sections (1) Fictional elements (with subsections on Unobtainium, etc) and (2) Actual elements (with subsections on UUP, etc). Then each real element could have a wikilink Ununpentium in pupular culture, and if any element has a large number of references, the section can be relatively short with a reference to the fuller article.  In this instance, there certainly doesn't seem to be enough information for Element 115 in popular culture to deserve its own article, but if you take this one with all the others, then there certainly is something notable and interesting about popular culture, without saying anything interesting at all about science. YBG (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The article in question, lasting this debate, has been repeatedly blanked on several parts. As well its text has been distorted to reflect subjective opinions without the use of any reference. Therefore, it is highly recommendable to check the summary and get the original version (as it was in the beginning of this debate, for instance). Eka-bismuth (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that the AfD notice states that you cannot blank the whole article, and not that you cannot blank any part of it. Double sharp (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Anti-gravity, which discusses a range of claimed anti-gravity technologies. There are a wide range of candidate merge/redirect targets, but since this article is about its use as a fictional anti-gravity technology, a specific merge here seems better than a general merge to fictional elements. Ununpentium is the other major target, but maybe we don't want to add imaginary properties to an article on a real element. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. What's the harm in it exactly?  The pretext for getting rid of it seems to be the usual "it's not notable" subjective judgement.  What is not notable to YOU may indeed be notable to somebody else, it's high time some editors start seeing the world past the ends of their own judgemental noses, and stop patronistically trying to decide on everybody else's behalf what they're allowed or not allowed to read about. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not subjective--you are welcome to start a broader discussion about those consensus criteria (or how they are applied), but for now they are what they are. Here, we are discussing whether Wikipedia should host that information on its own separate page. Articles about WP:FRINGE, disproven ideas, and all sorts of total nonsense are welcome if they are notable fringe/disproven/nonsense in their own right. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the more agreed concrete standards there are, the less it will be a judgement call or personal whim when disagreement arises, if something is 'notable'. I see there is a Notability Noticeboard for advice on this, I wonder what their take would be? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also changing my response, per Cyclopia, to merge, and mention on ununpentium. Eka-Bismuth should not be faulted for inexperiencedly creating a a non-notable article, because he didn't create it - it came about as a result of editors who didn't want it mentioned anywhere on ununpentium, and moved it. On consideration, I think it deserves about one sentence on ununpentium, including a link from there to Bob Lazar. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I want it deleted because there's no such subject. Lazar's nonsense isn't pop culture; it's bad science. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:HARMLESS. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think the article should have a link to the real element 115, BTW – this "element 115" has absolutely nothing to do with the real element 115, except in name. Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It is not up to Wikipedia to study or interpret whether cultural references have some current scientific background or are just nonsense. For all cases of topics: scientific, fringe, .., pop, fiction, myths, such articles are totally acceptable to Wikipedia and to any good encyclopedia. Besides articles, as current policy (WP:ALSO), can link all kind of distinct topics even those with remote associations. Eka-bismuth (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable. If not delete, then merge somewhere...but where I do not know. 75.147.120.1 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The notability of the topic in question was already evidenced. This was clearly manifested and demonstrated with factual examples by editor Cyclopia. In a conclusive way he provided general and specific examples; thus more than sufficient to certificate that the topic is really notable and that therefore the article should be kept in own space. Eka-bismuth (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A few scattered mentions in passing in books on other subjects, and the occasional video-game reference, are unlikely to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Where is the in-depth coverage required? The only significant sources seem to refer to Lazar's claims - and they can quite adequately be covered in the article on Lazar. Or are there any sources unrelated to Lazar's claims that actually say anything specific about this imaginary substance? What can an article say beyond "book X mentions it, and video game Y does the same" - that isn't notability by Wikipedia standards, it is trivia. So far, the article says next-to nothing about the substance at all, and if all that can be said is covered by the trivia on 'Ununpentium' in the materials science in science fiction section, there can be no justification for an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a starting article (72 hours of existence?). At this condition shouldn’t be expected a great article with all possible cultural references. It’s true that for now that Lazar’s claims still are a preponderant content. But this can change as much new material is added over time. And if Lazar is crazy or the substance is imaginary, these things are not up to Wikipedia to judge. However obviously there are also cultural references in works of declared fiction such as books, films, etc. Keep in mind that Wikipedia leaves the judgments to the reader's free opinion. Eka-bismuth (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. You need to provide evidence that there is significant coverage of 'element 115' other than in regard to Lazar's theory - just saying that such coverage exists isn't sufficient (the Google search above simply finds Lazar-related material - and that can go into our article on Lazar if it needs to go anywhere). And with regard to Wikipedia not judging whether "Lazar is crazy", read WP:FRINGE - there is no question of any Wikipedia article ever presenting his claims as anything other than wild speculation that doesn't accord with scientific knowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I can tell enough notability was already provided (doesn’t matter if Lazar’s stuff is for now predominant; no article should be expect to start already finished). However you can easily find other cultural references besides Lazar. For instance in the science fiction TV Seven Days, the Element 115 is many times utilized as grounding for the plot of several episodes; among them for example: Episode 9 – "As Time Goes By"; and Episode 21 – "Born in the USSR" at seasons 3 and 1. But please realize the main point: in a Cultural reference doesn’t matter if its topic (in this case: Cultural references of Element 115) is based on fiction, fantasies, or reality. And yes; Lazar´s claims are simply allegations (thus, not scientific studies). Obviously his claims cannot be regarded scientific unless they had been presented through scientific research (which is not the case – well, I am assuming that there is no public scientific evidence). Nonetheless understand that this aspect (i.e. science or not) is irrelevant to articles on cultural references (pop). We are not supposed to use this criterion (science, fiction, .., myth, or fringe) to nominate an article. On the contrary, Wikipedia’s policy doesn’t allow bias on any topic. In fact Wikipedia´s policy embraces all kinds of topics, including the fringe stuff. Eka-bismuth (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You have yet again failed to cite a source for your assertions - and clearly don't understand basic Wikipedia notability requirements. It is not sufficient that the subject of an article is mentioned in a source. It needs to be described in sufficient detail in secondary sources to enable an article about it to be written. The Seven Days episodes are a primary, not secondary source - and in any case, the series references to 'element 115' are clearly based around Lazar's own accounts. If Lazar's claims get incorporated in to SF TV shows, they may possibly merit a mention in the Lazar article, but they are no evidence that 'element 115' has any independent cultural significance. (Incidentally, the Seven Days article is completely lacking in sources, and useless as a reference). If you wish to claim that 'element 115' has cultural significance beyond Lazar, you need to provide citations to demonstrate this - citations to material that describes 'element 115' in sufficient detail that we can say something about it beyond the fact that it is mentioned in some TV show or other. An article that consists of nothing but a list of occurrences of the phrase 'element 115' is pop culture will fail entirely to demonstrate that the subject is remotely encyclopaedic. Articles need meaningful content: so far you have failed to demonstrate that such content can be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And you have repeatedly failed to realize that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Apparently you are now focused in other cultural references to Element 115 besides Lazar, which is acceptable. What is not acceptable is a demand for that article finding right now such completeness. Currently that article is almost a stub, and as everyone knows commonly articles needs months, or many times years of editions made by a number of distinct editors, until it achieves such near condition. However you request that right now. May be instead these demands you could use better your time rereading for example essays like Articles must be written where this point is a lot better explained than here. But let’s relax a little with some fun now: You said: - and in any case, the series references to 'element 115' are clearly based around Lazar's own accounts.  Well, if such claim made by you is true then we can conclude that you have in hand a secondary or third source that allowed you to reach such conclusion. But as you have nominated the article, then such thing is pretty unlikely. So the other possibility (if we accept your claim) is that as matter of fact the "element 115" is a very popular topic, (or else, how the TV series would know such information?). See, therefore unwitting you stated that the topic is notable. Other thing: the element 115 in the TV series has a fictional role which is distinct of those claimed by Lazar (therefore unlike of that by you implied. Suggestion: read the scripts). And at last: that article, as it stands, it owns meaningful content. Eka-bismuth (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And still you fail to cite any secondary sources to demonstrate notability of 'element 115' as a subject of popular culture - or that even tell us what 'element 115' is beyond what Lazar says. Anyway, I've made my point. Everything that can be said on the subject can either be covered in the Lazar article (and the Seven Days article if we can find a proper source that actually says anything meaningful about it), or is trivia that doesn't need coverage anywhere. This isn't a UFO-watchers' blog, or a SF fansite, and encyclopaedic articles can only be written about subjects which have meaningful content beyond 'it is mentioned in a TV show'. Rather than quoting obscure essays that don't mean what you think they do, how about reading WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary". If the 'concise summary' is "the TV series mentions 'element' 115 in several episodes", and the reception is "...well, nobody seems to have said anything about it, as far as we know..." it isn't significant - so the subject isn't notable, because nobody has noted it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Eka, please also note that WP:AMBW is a user essay (an opinion). WP:BURDEN (part of WP:VERIFIABILITY) is a policy. Yes, Wikipedia is a work in progress (also an essay), but a plan to undertake steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (adding everything else) does not circumvent or eliminate our responsibilities to step 1 - "it must be verifiable before you can add it". That includes the verifiability of notability. Please also have a read of WP:NOTPOLICY. Stalwart 111  02:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I detect a huge WP:BITE here. Now, it looks like Eka-bismuth is not acquainted with our maze of policies and rules -and this is completely understandable. I'm here from 2005 and editing WP has become more and more daunting -no wonder we don't attract any more editors. So please let's all keep cool and let's try to be constructive. Now: It is true that almost all sources discuss the theory in relationship to Bob Lazar (it seems there are a couple works citing it without referring directly to Bob Lazar, but it seems it all originates from the guy). As such I can agree that 1)the title is misleading and 2)with further thought, a merge to Bob Lazar seems most appropriate (I'll go change my !vote). I would also discuss, however, a mention into ununpentium: it is true that the two things are distinct, but many sources on the UFO-wackyness refer to it as ununpentium, and Element 115 redirects to ununpentium. Therefore, them being the most appropriate search terms, I'd add a brief (1-sentence?) section there making it clear that the theory has little to do to the real, known chemical element, and linking to the Lazar page. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect, I don't think that's entirely accurate. Our comments should be seen in context - there has been an ongoing discussion with Eka, also, on his talk page where he has professed a general understanding of policies and a determination to learn more. That process is ongoing and we have made a few suggestions. There has probably been some frustration on both sides because of the language barrier but I think we're getting there. Stalwart 111  11:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks Cycl o pia, you caught perfectly well my main point in this debate. That said by you is the big picture of this debate. That article is meaningful and acceptable in my opinion, however my capital concern in this debate always was to show, for the current community, how now Wikipedia rejects new articles and as well throws an avalanche of policies over fresh editors through contrived demands (i.e. ignoring some policies and embracing only those which are convenient for it). Yes, at some point all articles need to become featured, but meanwhile we also have to be constructive, patient, and use fairly the rules. However, as got clear here, the most acceptable new editors are those who say delete anyway, and never do other kind of contribution besides removals of unsourced contents (just forget the adding of references). A radical and pressing change in these attitudes (and likely policy as well) is necessary. Without such changes what future Wikipedia do has ahead? Not a pretty one for sure. Eka-bismuth (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Eka-bismuth, you're welcome. But keep in mind that a bit more humility on your part would help too. Just keep in mind that all the policies etc. we have are the result of years and years of ongoing discussion and consensus, so don't jump on challenging them too quickly. If someone points to you about policies etc. you surely have to read them and you are free to counter-argument the way they use them, but also keep in mind most of more experienced editors know probably better what is the meaning of those policies and guidelines. This of course doesn't mean you can't disagree -it just means it's worth paying attention.
 * Now, I personally agree that Wikipedia nowadays leans on the deletionist side, especially among many experienced editors. It stems from a slow but steady evolution towards a quality-over-quantity mindset, which I find noble, but that has been pushed too forward in my opinion. In fact, if you see my userpage, you'll notice I am not exactly happy with this state of things. However, Wikipedia works by editors' consensus, and to twist arms is not going to help anyone or anything. So, in short, it's politics. But it has to be changed from the inside, with civility and willingness to compromise. And whatever happens to your article, don't be sad or bitter. It's still a great project, and you can contribute constructively in many ways. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Your words were appreciated much more than I can tell you. Don’t worry, in my mind, that article never was "mine" – Besides, before all this I saw in some debates how newbies and their new articles were regarded. In fact I jumped into this debate article expecting to find exactly what happened and hoping to find commentaries like yours. My major goal was this: a calling for change. My capital goal here was successful achieved, and I had a good time. Probably I will continue lacking humility but I will think about, and I will certainly read your page.
 * And accenting a little more my points about new articles: for this specific case editors will find other cultural references, which highlight element 115 (but not related to Lazar) in the following secondary sources:


 * Tag: 
 * Fiction:
 * ISBN: 14259… {{ISBN|142595930X}}
 * ISBN: 05953… {{ISBN|0595311873}}
 * ISBN: 15519… {{ISBN|1551973103}}; by Cynthia J. Duke; title: Element 115. This is an exception; not only fiction, it widely explores 115 though also includes Lazar’ conspiracy theory. I am on the fist pages, yet can be said it is a testimonial on the topic.
 * ISBN: 14389… {{ISBN|1438916388}}
 * ISBN: 14116… {{ISBN|1411621522}}


 * Popular products:
 * ISBN: 076243… {{ISBN|0762438118}} (very tasteful)


 * TV/film/comics:
 * ISBN: 144021… {{ISBN|144021283X}}


 * P.S. These isbn's are real and this list of sources was cropped to fit the goals of this debate. The contents of these sources were carefully inspected to confirm their relevance. Also third-party ones were found but as those implied Lazar, then they were excluded from this list. Eka-bismuth (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This a discussion relating to the proposed deletion of a particular article. Given that you are now apparently stating that "My major goal was this: a calling for change", and that right from the start you have been aggressive and hostile to everyone who has disagreed with your misinterpretation of policy, I have little option but to assume that your efforts here are not sincere - and will suggest that other contributors make the same assumption. Policy debates are not conducted in AfDs, and we aren't going to play stupid games searching for sources you claim to have already found. If you wish to become a regular Wikipedia contributor, you will have to conform to policy, or argue for changes to such policy in the appropriate place - if you aren't willing to do this, I suggest you find another forum for your obsessions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While I feel AndyTheGrump has been a bit too grumpy in this debate, I have to say I agree with the gist of his comment. We don't play silly games, Eka. I ask you to be humble for a reason. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree. All and any debate involves much more than its pure theme. All debate is always an opportunity of improvement of the system. And all debate is deeply involved in policy be it directly or not connected to the subject. Besides, the article in question was, in an evident way, argued and defended sincerely/restlessly by me. Not only this, I also offered that what was so demanded (partial but still available somehow). Nobody would do that without genuine interest in the article. Eka-bismuth (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I could even agree in principle but 1)at this point, it's just trying to play smart-ass 2)if it's so, why such poor things like the ISBN game? It's almost trolling. I lent you a hand. Don't disappoint us. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well; I believe steadily that the article doesn’t need of such confirmation because sooner or later eventually the editors very likely would use these sources anyway (even if the article was merged or deleted). However I do that right now most for you, Cycl o pia.
 * Following the same above sequence: {{ISBN|142595930X}}, {{ISBN|0595311873}}, {{ISBN|1551973103}}, {{ISBN|1438916388}}, {{ISBN|1411621522}}, {{ISBN|0762438118}} and {{ISBN|144021283X}}. Eka-bismuth (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The information in the article is not about element 115 per se, nor is it about popular culture; rather, it discusses some conspiracy theory concerning a UFO propulsion system.  (That the alleged system happens to make use of element 115 is a rather tenuous connection.)  —Psychonaut (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I quite agree with other editors that there is no "popular culture" involved -- even if Eka-bismuth were not quite mistaken that the essay including WP:IPCA constituted an "explicit rule," which it does not -- and that there's no particular useful content to merge. That being said, I'm completely opposed to an early closure of this AfD, and am quite startled that AndyTheGrump is proposing one contrary to all the rules and customary practices of AfD. WP:SNOW not only is for an unambiguous result, it moots (however much this part of the essay is routinely ignored) that if anyone strongly objects to snowballing, a particular discussion is probably a poor candidate for it.  Since there's scarcely plurality for one delete/merge option over the others, WP:SNOW is wholly inappropriate.   Ravenswing   13:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I think in other fashion, and understand your present opinion, yet I’d like to emphasize attention to the list of references on 115 (sorted by distinct themes) recently given. It indicates that the topic has more material, as well as this can be solidly expanded beyond Lazar’ stuff and, most important, that Element 115 owns also notability in other cultural themes. Eka-bismuth (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No new references have been added to the article. I am quite willing to examine any that are.   Ravenswing   23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment At this point should be clear that I have stayed here not only fighting for helping that article but also for the whole Wikipedia. And shouldn’t be confused my boldness with an inclination to non-attendance of current policies. But in fact that’s the hard part of who wants to do something about. Something must be done and yet we need do that change using the current policy which on the other side we recommend to change; such it is the puzzle. Besides, as is natural, we have those who are satisfied as things are. But the reality is: right now Wikipedia keeps mostly closing its doors to newbies and their article’s new contents; i.e. www.wiki is therefore closing its doors to the world. Essentially it is walking to its tomb. Apparently many editors who support this current policy, in my opinion are aware how that situation is bad but are somehow in denial. And unfortunately is likely that some editors mistakenly believe that this situation (closed doors) is good for them because they feel themselves powerful; they feel that can impose what they subjectively want to Wikipedia. These latter ones of course are enjoying an imaginary power, yet ephemerally using the flaws of Wikipedia’s policy to enforce their own opinions on articles and people (this is not only my perception, indeed there are statistics and essays about the big impact and spreading of bias within Wikipedia – sorry, I don’t remember the links). That’s the present reality; it is a serious situation. And extreme situations demand unusual measures; measures such as the steps made in this "atypical" debate; i.e. we need to find solutions out of the box and implement such solutions. Some editors may have caught in surprise with this singular Afd, however does not seem that Wikipedia has some policy against deepening a debate until the policy’s bones. There is no trolling here, because trolls don’t reason for helping Wikipedia as has been done over here. I let go some harsh commentaries made by others because I think all editors around need a little more of time to digest the non-orthodoxy done here, as well because some rare brave editors sought to bring moderation to the debate. I don’t think we had any silly game but actually an innovative demonstration of reasoning where at that point in the end we could also verify that (and why) consensus can become an erratic aspiration in a debate, and that the article after all indeed has distinct cultural references. Needless to say we cannot expect that this debate rescues Wikipedia to its days of glory, but hopefully it can be, among other free initiatives, more one referential starting point. Eka-bismuth (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: It is a regular feature at AfD that (especially inexperienced) editors aggrieved that their pet articles are being deleted pen essays similar to the above, claiming that Wikipedia's failure to suspend its notability criteria and other rules and guidelines in their favor is a sure harbinger of the encyclopedia's doom. In point of fact, the notability criteria are not "subjective" - they've been painfully hammered out over a decade's time.  There is no "crisis" requiring "extreme measures" - and somehow, those "extreme measures" always do seem to boil down to "Let my article stay on Wikipedia" - if a horde of casual users from the days when Wikipedia was the Next Big Internet Fad are leaving the project in the hands of those who seriously care about maintaining and improving it, well and good. Your insinuation that your article is the victim of power-mad haters is easily refuted.  Go look at AfD for any given day; there are about 80-120 articles put up daily.  You will see the same editors cropping up over and over again, in AfD after AfD ... voting to Keep sometimes, voting to Delete other times.  These discussions aren't dominated by folks highly invested in the subject matter, but by average Wikipedians who seek to apply the rules and guidelines in standard fashions.  No one here is Out To Get You -- you haven't been on the encyclopedia two weeks, and what foes could you possibly have made in that time?  No one here is Out To Get Your Article -- I have no stake or interest in what elements do or do not get articles, and I'm sure that in like fashion there aren't many physicists or pseudoscientists commenting here.  All this is is another AfD.   Ravenswing   23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As said, many ones deposit faith in the present system. But they (good faith editors, as seems to be your case) shouldn’t be confused with incidental haters (who for sure exist too). About the AfD(s) motif, I hope to have made clear in this debate some of the structural conflicts concerning it. Issues which were a recall for some editors, a demonstration to others, a hint to others, or ignored by those who either don’t want deal with them or are too immersed in the ordinary routine. For the latter ones, a suggestion, "start to use a telescope rather than a magnifying glass." Yes, Wikipedia owns great pearls, and also yes, it has been improved over the years, there is no doubt about that, but unhappily that doesn’t mean it is quite resolved. So is that the issue is a world observation and an inside Wikipedia’s worry (I should remember those links).Eka-bismuth (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Closure proposal
Note. Since at this point the result of this AfD seems clear, and little is likely from continuing beyond more nonsense from Eka-bismuth, I have asked that this AfD be close per (WP:SNOW): see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please let's not do that -process exists for a reason. You can't read what will happen in the future, in theory it is very well possible that some other editor brings novel arguments for either side, even if I myself see it as unlikely. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Several editors have agreed that a brief mention is warranted on some article, but ultimately the divide seems to be whether somewhere on ununpentium is a reasonable place, as I agree it is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, then, someone could suggest a specific set of closure parameters and editors could subsequently indicate whether they Support or Oppose the parameters. Given the discussion has not resulted in a clear consensus (about the merger target), perhaps suggesting a specific merger target will allow a consensus to be established/indicated. For what it's worth, my suggested wording would be - Proposal - that the majority of content be merged to Bob Lazar and a brief mention of the subject be included at ununpentium (supported by sources) with appropriate references (and links) to Bob Lazar. Stalwart' 111 ' 03:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Stalwart's proposal accurately sums up what a number of us have said, so I'd support it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support too. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or how about, "Delete, and agree to discuss on Talk:Ununpentium how much (if any) mention to give it?" ... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ONEWAY it would be grossly inappropriate to give this fringe theory extra promotion by including it at Ununpentium. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree based on Jamaican Bobsled Team clause -- No  unique  names  00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment on mergers. As it stands, there is nothing in the article to merge. What little it actually says relates exclusively to Lazar's 'element 115' claims - and it says nothing about them that the Lazar article doesn't already say. Regarding any 'non-lazar' pop culture material, we have yet to see sources (properly) cited which demonstrate any meaningful encyclopaedic content at all, and it would seem that any that exists will be firmly in the SF/fiction category which is already covered in the Materials science in science fiction article - though the 'Ununpentium' entry would be better renamed as 'element 115', and the material already there needs proper sourcing and/or removal of trivia before more is added. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The main issue I see is that, whatever the merits of including any of this material (I think a sentence in Lazar's article is sufficient), the title is misleading, and I think deliberately so. This isn't popular culture; this is a crackpot theory. We need to break the pretense by deleting this article outright. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer to assume good faith, as the phrase 'in popular culutre' in wikipedia tends to be used for miscelania and trivia. YBG (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "This isn't popular culture; this is a crackpot theory." - Being a crackpot theory is irrelevant for deletion. After all we have an article on homeopathy. What counts is how notable or not is the theory. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not irrelevant. The point is that this article is really about "Element 115 in Lazar's theories"; it doesn't have anything to do with popular culture. Therefore there is no reason to leave a redirect from here to anywhere, not because of a lack of notability, but because there is no such genuine subject. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  merge or delete The title is misleading. It's a coat rack on which has been hung content about Lazar. I suggest merging a small piece to Bob Lazar if it can be reliably sourced. At the moment the article appears credulous. Someone needs to take a lot at these sources, I'm skeptical of the reliability of The Mammoth Book of UFOs. From her own website, the author says about UFOs "it may not be quite what people have come to believe... And behind many cases of encounters with 'aliens' there does seem to be contact with an otherworld, perhaps an intrusion from other dimensions. " If the other sources are equally dubious, it should be deleted. What's the extent of coverage in "Here Be Dragons: The Scientific Quest for Extraterrestrial Life", it's claimed it's mentioned on page 186, I don't have that on the preview but page 187 has nothing about Lazar or this topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the Bob Lazar article already covering the content, this article can be deleted. Unlikely redirect. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and do not merge. Insufficient sources for a fringe topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: In particular to give the opportunity to develop a consensus on what the merge target should be


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)




 * A request for those proposing a merger. Given that the only material in the article as it stands relates to Lazar's claims, and is already covered (in more intelligible English) in the article on Lazar, can they please let us know what it is that they consider to be a candidate for merger? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump - to be clear, I've made no particular comment about how much should be merged. I am more than happy to accept the actual volume of merge-able content might end up being zero, as the Bob Lazar article already includes most (if not all, as you contend) of what should be included.
 * @IRWolfie- - it's inclusion at ununpentium is neither here nor there. As far as I'm concerned it's like including a mention of The Da Vinci Code in the Rosslyn Chapel article. It adds not much of anything...
 * @Mangoe - agree. As I suggested in my original note, there should be no redirect kept (the title should be deleted). Stalwart 111  00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump: My views are the same as what Stalwart111 has expressed in the comment immediately above. Double sharp (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable fringe theory trying to masquerade as a topic in Wikipedia. Title is disingenuous as pointed out above. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable fringe nonsense without substantial coverage in multiple relaible sources. Title is misleading, and contents are of zero encyclopedic value. There's basically nothing worth merging anywhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to "Element 115 (disambiguation)". The page is now a disambiguation page with band album names and video games and conspiracy theories. There is no coherent topic, just disambiguation. Bhny (talk • contribs) 23:38, 12 November 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Most of this content is trivia, anyway. The stuff which isn't trivia is already covered in Bob Lazar and should be there only (giving it a mention in ununpentium is undue weight). Double sharp (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - nothing to save not already replicated as far as I can tell. -- No  unique  names  17:45, 15 November 2012 (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.