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)[reply]

[edit]
Element 115 in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
With a bit of more attention, it seems you are right. I will edit my !vote accordingly. --Cyclopiatalk 10:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh, well in that case, my merge suggestion wouldn't work. Merge... somewhere else. If not, Delete. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Materials science in science fiction, perhaps? Double sharp (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
..."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? Stalwart111 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Sorry also, my stupid mistake.Eka-bismuth (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All good, no worries! . Stalwart111 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Wikipedia does not discuss the merit of these contents"? What do you mean by that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This would be equal to enforcing biasOkay,... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Eka-bismuth: Your definition of "bias" seems to include notability tests... Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little better now? Next time I will do some revision ... Eka-bismuth (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit your comments after they have been responded to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There's no such thing as a finished article – see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Double sharp (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent note! That's exactly what supports and certificates my point. Eka-bismuth (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please see WP:HARMLESS. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: <re>read the scripts). And at last: that article, as it stands, it owns meaningful content. Eka-bismuth (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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. Stalwart111 11:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Cyclopia, 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)[reply]
  • 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. --Cyclopiatalk 15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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: <Next sections need expansion. For your personal satisfaction, (yes, I do know that the burden...) editors can research and fill the rest of the ISBN’s number, as normal constructive editors would.>
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)[reply]
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 [1], 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)[reply]
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. --Cyclopiatalk 21:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Cyclopiatalk 23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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, Cyclopia.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Closure proposal

[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Could an admin please close an AfD early to prevent further strife? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. Stalwart111 03:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support too. --Cyclopiatalk 18:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's fine with me. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Disagree based on Jamaican Bobsled Team clause --Nouniquenames 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Per the Bob Lazar article already covering the content, this article can be deleted. Unlikely redirect. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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). Stalwart111 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
More