Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdimensional hypothesis (2nd 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Interdimensional hypothesis
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Essentially, this article is the opinion of one guy, Jacques Vallee, who has failed to convince anyone else of his bizarre opinions (not even the alien-believing wackos). His opinions can be explained on the page devoted to him, but since the idea itself has not received notability and independent sourcing for fringe theories, this page deserves deletion or at the very least redirection to the Vallee article. I am reposting here because this argument was not made in the previous AfD, but should have been. Rather than boldy moving the article to its natural state as a redirect to Vallee's article, I repost here. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  —Artw (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. The article was rebuilt around sources after the previous AFD, which would seem to establish WP:N (I've added a couple more just in case), and though the article is rather Vallee heavy it's a recognised ufological theory. Artw (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has at least 5 sources independent from Vallee that are sufficient to support a separate article and the article makes it clear enough it's a fringe theory. -Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Last AFD closed only 4 weeks ago; the only thing that has changed in the interim is that the article has been improved. JulesH (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep More reason to keep than before, and a one month wait between nominations for deletion is quite insufficient. Collect (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm aware of alternate published sources that discuss these ideas in depth, they routinely crop up during channelled communications for example.  K2709 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I'm by all means a UFO-skeptic and I don't know much about this area, I've nevertheless heard about this theory (although it's more of a popular opinion of sorts than something I'd associate with one person like Jacques Vallee). Sourcing is sufficient to at least pass an AFD and this even has a potential of becoming a featured article one day. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough for its own article, perhaps it could be included in the broader UFO article or combined with Extraterrestrial hypothesis.--Peephole (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The faith of the nom shouldn't have a bearing on AfD discussions, since the article should be able to sink or swim on its own grounds. In the case of this article, I think the subject passes the notability guidelines (barely), but the limits on its notability/acceptance should be made explicit in the article.  This should clear up the nominator's concerns about the fringe topic being overly-represented. Themfromspace (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Existing sources do not establish notability. Sławomir Biała (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that you just removed Steven J. Dick as a source. Removing a reliable source from an article then opining that the article should be deleted based upon "existing sources" is not a particularly aboveboard approach. Uncle G (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed a pair of quotation that had nothing to do with the article. You then reverted my change and, to boot, are not assuming much good faith here. I have tagged the portions of the text that are irrelevant.  Clearly, we should only be considering citations that actually have something to do with the subject of the article.  14:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You removed quotations that are given by the sources cited as part of, and evidence for, the analyses of the various people's stances on the subject. If there's anything that is clear, it is that you aren't acually going and reading the sources cited, so your opinion of what is relevant, and indeed of the article as a whole, has no valid foundation.  The assumption of good faith does not require us to be blind to such faults.  Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The quotations appear not to have anything to do with the article. To turn your rhetoric around, not having read the sources does not require us to be blind to issues of relevance.  The fact that you continue to insist that my assessment of the irrelevance of these quotations is predicated on a lack of familiarity with the sources strongly suggests that you have read the sources, and so should be willing to address my concerns in the article.  Otherwise, your assertion that my opinion lacks a valid foundation itself lacks a valid foundation.  Sławomir Biała (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It's pretty much self-evident that someone who not only hasn't read the sources, and (as is becoming more and more evident) isn't willing to even go and read them, can have nothing meaningful to say on whether the sources "establish notability", or indeed as to what is relevant to the subject as it is documented outside of Wikipedia.  Again, we don't have to be blind to a removal of source citations in order to support a false assertion that they don't exist, that then (when noted for the underhandedness that it is) mutates into a challenge against text made on the basis that the sources don't substantiate the article that then (when noted for not being based upon checking the sources) becomes based upon a refusal to read the sources and a request that everyone else spoon-feed them to you.  Your concerns, were they made in good faith, would be addressed by you actually putting in the effort to read the sources and check the article against them.  They are readily accessible.  Given that your complaint has no foundation in doing so, no more to address it is needed.  Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reply is utterly without substance. For what it's worth, I did check out the sources.  The citations in the article are a bit misleading, since it is entirely based on Bates's synthesis of the opinions of other UFOlogists.  In fact, the quotations are the same as those selected in his book.  I suggest that we should refocus the discussion on the extent to which Bates is a reliable source, followed by whether we need to reiterate the same quotations that he does.  Sławomir Biała (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit. Article needs a rewrite to help clearly position it as a topic among UFOlogists and saucer culture rather than a serious academic hypothesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It already says that. Indeed text was taken out of the article during this discussion, ironically because it was considered excessive repetition of what was already explicit right from the start of the article.  (See the edit summary.)  If you think that the article is better with the text in, discuss it with the editor who made that edit. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 22 February 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.