Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SETI paradox


 * 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. Wizardman 00:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

SETI paradox

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

Nomination: No mention of notability, and I suspect there is none at this point enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Additionally, the article is largely composed of speculative opinion that I doubt can be attributed. I'm not even sure if the opinions of this Zaitsev is a mainstream one worthy of mention, eg. Google turns up only message boards and blogs (other than his paper, Wikipedia and its mirrors) none of which seem to meet the criteria for a reliable source or expert opinion. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 06:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest to your notice an article: SETI’s Paradox and the Great Silence (with 52 comments) —Preceding unsigned comment added by METIfan (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found. Most of the sources on the subject appear to stem from a single paper published over a year ago, and they are mostly blogs (for example, here or listings of the paper (for example, here).- Samuel  Tan  14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a sneaking suspicion that this can be sourced somewhere. SETI was a pretty popular concept among scientists for a while and some breathless conference papers were written about it.  Perhaps somewhere criticizing the Drake equation (aside from the criticism of it being non-scientific gobbledygook).  I'll look. Protonk (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Oh yeah! This can probably be merged into Fermi paradox rather than deleted. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Samuel Tan. I've been keeping an eye on this article for a while and it's seemed pretty clear that this has no secondary sources to back it up. fethers (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Fermi paradox (if they're out there, why haven't they contacted us by now?), which this is a corollary to (If everyone's listening, but nobody is transmitting, nothing will happen). I think Protonk's suggestion is best, unless there are secondary sources (although like Tonk, I also have a sneaking suspicion that this can be sourced, and that Dr. Zaitsev has been noticed by other publications besides the Bulletin of the Special Astrophysical Observatory Mandsford (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete if no suitable home can be found. MediaMob (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Merging is not a substitute for deletion. The main problem here is that there seem to be no reliable secondary sources that can establish the notability of this "paradox" in the SETI (or astronomical, etc.) field, and merging will not fix that problem. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 07:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - and do not merge as we should not be merging unsourced information -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 20 August 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.