Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Serpo (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   no consensus to delete. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Serpo
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This conspiracy theory has received no independent, third-party attention. It fails our notability criteria outlined on WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like it was discussed in a series of articles in UFO magazine, which appears to be a fairly professional looking publication (its website refers to 'newsstand distribution' which would seem to imply more than a one man band type of rag). Looks like they had an issue with four articles devoted to the theory, which seems to be more than trivial coverage. MadScot (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It is hard to believe that UFO magazine could be described as a reliable source in the sense that it carries out fact-checking, any more than Mad Magazine is a reliable source.--Grahame (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment But realistically, how can you have a "reliable source" for a fringe theory? Almost by definition, if it's off-the-wall it's going to be somewhat unreliable in nature. WP:FRINGE states "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication" and I note it doesn't ask that the major publication meet WP:RS. I'll happily be corrected if someone digs out policy or precedent, but it seems that we're explicitly allowing sources of less-than-normal reliability, provided they are independent of the theory's creator and so on. MadScot (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles must simultaneusly satisfy ALL policies and guidelines. If a publication that we source a WP:FRINGE claim to is not WP:RS then we have a problem with WP:RS. And it is possible t have reliable sources which discuss fringe theories. Check out Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories for some examples. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But what is a RS in this sense? "fact checking" seems an awfully high bar - I mean, outside the 'believers' no-one thinks the facts exist. Unless you mean things like confirming that the theory exists, not its factuality. And unless a fringe magazine is writing articles about things IT ITSELF MAKES UP (down which road insanity lies IMO) then they probably are crossing that lower bar for an RS. I was considering the fact checking comment perhaps too tightly - what fact should an RS be checking in such a case?MadScot (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a point about third-party independent source acknowledging the existence of an idea. That is the single standard I'm using for what would constitute a reliable source. From what I have seen, such a source does not exist. There are a bunch of conspiracy theorist websites trumpeting about the existence of this project, but unless we can find a person who isn't wrapped up in promoting the idea, we have no way of judging the level of notability this idea has: nor do we have any chance of writing a neutral article on the subject without such reliable sources. Contrast that with the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories upon which there are loads of independent sources writing. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That sounds like what you're saying is that we need a counter-article (the 'serious' coverage of the Kennedy theories being by people seeking to debunk them, no?) Any coverage by a source sympathetic to a fringe theory is always going to be ropier than a mainstream source countering the theory. Is that about right? MadScot (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless there is some relatively RS source that discusses the actual existence of this group. Less than norma reliability, sure, but at this point there's nothing at all to show they actually have been noticed by anyone besides themselves. DGG (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously ridiculous nonsense, however I am moved by Madscot and Graham's argument, as long as it contains sufficient independent coverage, which at a glance it does seem to (g-hits too), then it is worth keeping in some form. Rewrite and notability tags perhaps?JJJ999 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Independent? Please, show me. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent non-trivial coverage. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a couple of paragraphs about it in this Skeptical Inquirer article. Probably not enough for you, but it is an independent, third party source. Zagalejo^^^ 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete subject amounts to a series of postings in internet forums. NN. &mdash; BillC talk 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep for now We've got which is a start, I guess. rootology  ( C )( T ) 06:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * [3] is a comment by a reader on a blog. The other three are hosted on different websites, but are all by the same author, and are newsblog postings. &mdash; BillC talk 07:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As well as the sources cited above there's a paragraph here and this has has been the subject of a comic novel as reported here. Taken all together I think that just about adds up to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- I am convinced, and I remember Phil's reasoning in some earlier AfDs I was in which was credible. I think that even if a fringe theory, it has enough notable coverage.  It should be kept for improvement.- JJJ999 (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, fails WP:FRINGE no extensive reference by independent sources. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 00:19, 4 October 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.