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 speedy keep. Closing on behalf of the nominator who has withdrawn. Note that I am involved, so will undo this close on request. SpinningSpark 11:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent falling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Notability. The sources are a The Onion article, two newsgroup posts, and a comic. A quick web search finds a brief mention in The Guardian, a post by an unnamed author on ScienceBlog.com, and a brief mention in Slate. I don't personally doubt that this was at least a minor phenomenon in the early 2000s, but I question that this meets the WP:SIGCOV guideline. MarshallKe (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, covered in reliably published books Human Origins: What Bones And Genomes Tell Us About Ourselves, Dictionary of Contemporary Mythology (by William R. Harwood), Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration. Has also been covered in newspapers: The Guardian, The Daily Northwestern. SpinningSpark 22:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources idemtified by User:Spinningspark . . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into fine-tuned universe. Isaac Newton was a deist who saw gravity as an element in the clockwork universe. The fact that this works so well is still something of a mystery. The contrary idea that it's all just random happenstance seems lacking while the page in question is just a feeble joke. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While the sources in the article (and those I found when advocating a "week keep" 5 years ago) were less than fulsome, there do appear to be enough available now to support a claim to independent notability. Per User:Spinningspark and others. My recommendation (then and now) remains in the "keep" camp. Guliolopez (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Given the new sources, I concur with keeping the article. MarshallKe (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2021 (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.