Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel hair

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 00:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel hair[edit]

Angel hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I do not believe there are any reliable sources which indicate enough research on this subject for us to have an encyclopedia article. Much of the article right now is original research and the term itself seems confined to the Ufological community (not widely enough known to pass our WP:GNG. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the pasta. I've never heard of this term before in that sense. I would have just redirected without any discussion. Nate • (chatter) 06:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you have checked for sources before? Did you just now? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Violates WP:OR and utter nonsense to boot. Why wasn't this CSD'ed? --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 06:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because, quite rightly, no speedy deletion criterion applies. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to pasta, per suggestion above. This is just nonsense. Unschool 06:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Capellini or Spaghetti.  LinguistAtLarge  06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Capellini. Article is original research. Matt (Talk) 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense or not, it's neither unverifiable nor original research. I find plenty of books documenting this, including documenting several possible prosaic explanations of this phenomenon. (Such as page 82 of ISBN 9780520239050, for example.) This isn't something that one person believes, nor is it something that only one person has written about. It's certainly not something that isn't written about at all. I have no access to the book, but commentary on the WWW leads me to believe that even Terence Hines has written about this. There are, indeed, sources available for both sides of the "It's just spiderweb." argument. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Capellini. Is there a pasta for con trails too? :) --Blowdart | talk 08:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to capellini as noted by Blowdart. We're now supporting a ridiculous idea based on a fringe idea? Alien spaceship exhaust falls on people as spiderweb-like ectobooger? Waste of space. ThuranX (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/move Lots of sources for this including works published by the AAAS. Note that we already have Angel hair pasta as a separate title. The title Angel hair might be made a dab page and the content moved to Angel hair (UFO) or similar. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense, a subsequent redirect is fine if anyone can find a likely target but this is, to quote Jimbo in another case, abject nonsense on a stick. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I view this article to see what is the difference between angel hair and linguine, and I get a lot of fringe-theory about UFOs, ectoplasm, and other nonsense stuff? Redirect this to a more appropriate pasta article please. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Capellini, as in angel hair pasta. Maybe someday someone following Wikipedia poicies on notability and sourcing can make a case for the UFO term to have a separate article under a different name, but glancing at the link provided by Colonel Warden above, it's going to be a tough sell, as most of the books that come up seem to be pretty iffy-sourcing wise, and the quotes that come up in the text of the books found do not seem to suggest it has much overall notability to stand alone as an article separate from miscellaneous Forteana. Just existing as a real term in limited usage within a specific field alone does not a Wikipedia article make. DreamGuy (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May be WP:FRINGE but there are plenty of reliable publications on this subject. Maybe move to Angel hair (UFO phenomenon) and redirect the main page as above. Useful sources in addition to the one reliable source already quoted in the article: [1] [2] [3] [4]. JulesH (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first three links you provided are not anywhere near close to a reliable source. Pravda.Ru is like The Weekly World news but online so worse. The first and third are short blips with no information from edutainment sites. The last is ForteanTimes, which, while fringe, is a reliable source for the opinions of people on the fringe. But the mention there is extremely brief, and thus is not a "nontrivial" mention as required by notability standards. And, really, if you offered those up as reliable sources you really have to go back and read WP:RS to understand it better. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep and move - the source is out there! Artw (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per dearth of in depth independent coverage. The AAAS book mentioned above is, I believe, UFO's - a Scientific Debate By Carl Sagan, which does not discuss the history or provenance of the term, but does mention it as a term that comes up when talking to UFOlogists. Angel hair seems to come up often enough to be notable to the UFOlogist community, but if nobody outside of one small community has noticed and treated the topic, WP:GNG says no. Redirect to Capellini if deleted, obviously. - Eldereft

(cont.) 17:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep New sources below and in article push me over. The unmodified title should probably point to the pasta, but that is not an AfD issue. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looking at the sources provided by JulesH, WP:GNG says yes. Juzhong (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read WP:GNG? ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail" -- only semi-reliable sources do not go into any detail, and the only ones that have gone into details are horribly unreliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they are addressed in detail. How much detail do you expect. It is more than a stub and less than the article on World War II. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies and previous decisions specify how much detail is needed for these kinds of things. In the field in question coverage is slightly above completely trivial, outside the field all references are extremely trivial. There is a differences between using reliable sources to prove that some term exists and provided arguments proving notability for a full article. You don't seem tog et that, because you use arguments for the former while concluding the latter. That's not how things have eve worked here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Capellini. Simple mention of the term does not establish notability; references must discuss the term in question to qualify as sources. Horologium (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Mkay. So why aren't you voting keep? Juzhong (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reread what he said. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And then just go ahead and amend the vote to keep? Juzhong (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about you go read out policies instead of being so uncivil in your assertions that others are wrong? The vote was made appropriately and for reasons that follow Wikipedia standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UNACCEPTABLE. The presumption that you can and will change another person's "vote" because you assert special authority is disruptive and incivil in itself. Redact your comment. ThuranX (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing uncivil being said here, nor does anyone have to "redact" their comments. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think Juzhong was being uncivil then you need to reread what he wrote. That kind of attitude gets warnings and leads to blocks. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That edit was not vandalism, and labeling it such demonstrates your lack of understanding of the vandalism policy here as well as WP:AGF. Your actions here are HIGHLY uncivil, bordering on outright personal attacks. If you keep that nonsense up I'll report you for such violations. DreamGuy (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalism is vandalism is vandalism. Deleting verifiable references and additions to an article in this edit, to bring the article back to the point where you voted to delete it, is pure, 100%, unadulterated vandalism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't blame me for asserting he was wrong, DreamGuy told me to re-read it, I did, and he should still be voting keep according to his own statement (this bit: "references must discuss the term in question"). Juzhong (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to even be reading what people said and interpreting them whatever way you think will make you sound right in your own head. You should just give that all a rest. DreamGuy (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been following the entire discussion, and although I see strong comments from many of the participants, including you, there is nothing that would be considered a personal attack by one editor against another. Mandsford (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
False labely edits vandalism? Someone saying he should go change someone's votes? If not outright violations of WP:NPA those are substantial violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. DreamGuy (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my comment was written before at 17:53 and everything in between came later. It's a heated discussion. To everybody, I would point out that, technically, even "aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict" are considered a violation of WP:CIVIL, and I think that all of us tend to be aggressive when it comes to caring about Wikipedia. However, nobody here should feel that someone else has gotten the best of them. Keep, delete, merge, whatever happens, it's only a debate. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks reliable sources, and fails verifiability. Flying saucers emit something like pixie dust? I do like the pasta. though. A redirect to it would be helpful. Edison (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spaghetti. The content is either completely original research or unverifiable, take your pick. MuZemike (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Reliable sources for fringe theories are the published fringe authors and fringe periodicals. So long as there are multiple fringe sources. We don't require articles on religion to provide sources from scientific publications, but sources from their philosophical peers. This article meets every criteria for Wikipedia entry in that is it has "multiple independent sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to start a Fringeopedia and use that as a rule, by all means. We look for reliable and notable sources giving nontrivial coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, that is how Wikipedia works. If the source is reliable enough for Google News and reliable enough for Google Books, it is reliable enough for Wikipedia, despite denigrating the sources as non-scientific, and fringe. You wouldn't ask a religious article to draw its sources from scientific papers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you'd expect articles on religious topics to have enough mainstream coverage to demonstrate notability first. If the only thing talking about it are religious works, then it's not notable for an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible is not a reliable source. The only reason why there is an article about Moses is because other sources that are reliable have given coverage to Moses. UFO stuff are not any better. UFO literature is not a reliable source. They can only establish notability if there stuff is given coverage by reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I challenge the notion that any sources for this nonsense are either "reliable" or "independent." Edison (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then go through the sources one-by-one and tell me what is wrong with each one. Use the same skepticism you would use for any article on a religion. It doesn't haven't be a scientific fact anymore than any other folktale. Sources have to be independent of each other to be "multiple independent", and they are. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already went through the ones above. DreamGuy (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you said "Pravda.Ru is like The Weekly World news but online so worse", and what reliable source told you that? Or are you engaging in original research? The headlines from Pravda.Ru today are: Russia’s new international role becomes its biggest achievement in 2008; Israel launches massive military operation against Gaza Strip; and Military expenditure increases dramatically all over the world. How did you come to your conclusion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it astounding anyone on Wikipedia doesn't know that pravda.ru is a trash tabloid site. It's been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere a zillion times. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And here I called you a vandal, that doesn't make it the truth (pravda in Russian}, just my opinion. When it appears on the Wikipedia blacklist (our official burn notice) the source is unreliable, until then it is just people's personal opinions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't the truth, but it is a personal attack prohibited under Wikipedia policy. I'm afraid you misunderstand the use of the blacklist, and the standards of the reliable source policy. Should I set up RichardArthurNorton.com and begin slandering you, it is not presumed reliable until I start spamming it onto articles and get it blacklisted. It is the considered consensus opinion of reasonable people on the reliable sources noticeboard that Pravda.ru is not a reliable source for anything, including this article. Nevard (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 12 pages matching "Angel Hair" in The World of Flying Saucers: A Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space Age[5] By Donald Howard Menzel, Lyle Gifford Boyd. "Angel Hair, Pancakes etc" appears to be the title of a chapter. There is even a subsection entitled "other varieties of angel hair". Juzhong (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we need multiple reliable sources establishing notability in a non trivial way. Even if we consider that book reliable, it does not give any reason to believe the term is notable enough to carry a Wikipedia article in and of itself instead of a subsection of another article. Try lots more books, books only about this topic, reliable scientific studies, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct that a book has to be entirely on the topic, or even primarily on the topic to be used. attempts to insert this into WP:RS have been rejected by the community. The requirement is substantial coverage, and a chapter of a book is certainly sufficient for that. There also seems to be some serious confusion here between the sort of sourcing that would be necessary to establish this as a real phenomenon, and that which is necessary to establish it as connected with UFOs. The first of course is not met. But even the Pravda article is suitable for the second. DGG (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly a response to "nobody outside of one small community has noticed and treated the topic". Anyway it's evidence of public interest. Juzhong (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Multiple independent reliable sources" means more than one, and less than infinity. The number used in the article looks fine to me, if I am performing my math correctly. Don't confuse the truth with reliability. The phenomena doesn't have to real, just the facts verifiable in a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Capellini. Pravda as a source? Raelliay? Nevard (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of whether one believes that UFOs leave behind residue, this is apparently what it's referred to in those circles [6]. The article is sourced, and more sources could be added. Certainly, I see no reason to redirect "Angel hair (folklore)" to the article about "angel hair pasta". I'm not aware of any folklore involving noodles. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one would redirect [[Angel hair (folklore) to the pasta. This article is (or was, if someone took itupon themselves to move it already) at Angel hair. If there is an angel hair (folklore) (which their shouldn't be, it's not really folklore as much as UFO-dreck) it should redirect to something like list of UFO reports or list of Fortean phenomena or whatever. Trivial sources do not establish notability for a separate article. Lots of books reference similar jargon within niche fields, but they don't all get separate articles here just because a number of books in that niche mentin them. DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page move shenanigans are the result of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) moving it to Angel hair (folklore) and User:Brewcrewer attempting to redirect it instead to Angel hair (UFO phenomenon) (which instead simply created a double redirect, which I fixed with a rather testy edit summary). I'm strongly tempted to undo all of the page moves, because it's creating a mess which somebody is going to have to clean up. Moving pages during AFD discussions is not a good idea, especially when there is no consensus to make the page move; in this case, there was no discussion at all about the move to the location chosen. FWIW, I agree with Brewcrewer's intent, but the timing and implementation were sub-optimal, to put it mildly. Horologium (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double redirects eventually get cleaned up by a maintenance bot. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I screwed up. I intended to move Angel hair (folklore) to Angel hair (UFO phenomenon), but mistakenly moved Angel hair to Angel hair (UFO phenomenon), which as you can see messed everything up. As for the mid-afd move, I did not think the name of the article was really an issue here. I actually have not !voted at this afd and I have not decided how I will !vote. But I figured, that in any case, the article should be moved. I even though that RAN would agree with my subsequent move. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected[edit]

As this page is moving way too much, I have move protected the page. Leave the page in one location, because constant moves make it very difficult to track. Once the discussion has closed, the name (if the article is not deleted) can be settled by consensus. Horologium (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. The article was called "Angel hair" at the beginning of the discussion, and has also been called "Angel hair (folklore)", "Angel hair (UFO phenomenon)" and "Angel hair (UFO)" in the last couple of days. I've heard the term applied to tinsel being hung on Christmas trees, but there's not much folklore that I'm aware of outside of the UFO fringe. Mandsford (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no (UFO) tagged articles under Category:UFO-related phenomena, just (folklore), hence my choice. Rather than invent a new parenthetical, I used the existing one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Sufficient sources. I commented on the specifics of why they're sufficient above. It is only necessary to show substantial discussion by books or newspapers, and that;s been shown. The quality of the book or newspapers is irrelevant entirely; when you're dealing with something as fringy as this, you show coverage in fringe sources. The article needs adjustment in tone to indicate the nature of this. As someone very much dedicated to the idea that the Scientific point of view on the world is only sensible one, I would hope to see full coverage here of every alleged UFO-related phenomenon. Such presentation serves the educational purpose of demonstrated the nature of the nonsense. I think the correct title is Angel hair (UFO phenomenon). I am truly startled by the extraordinarily non-objective view of some of my scientific colleagues above, that the correct way to expose such stuff is to pretend nobody talks about it. DGG (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon your comments here and on other articles lately (hope you haven't been following my edits around, as you've appeared in some odd locations lately to revert me) it's clear you have a rather unique personal view of what entails notability. You're certainly entitled to that, but to say that supporters of science on the page aren't being objective is simply wrong, and the claim that our actions are motivated by pretending nobody talks about it is just nonsense. Both statements would seem to be uncivil and violations of WP:AGF. People talk about lots of things. Most of them do not get Wikipedia articles of their own. That's objective, and that's not pretending anything, it's facing facts and following policies. DreamGuy (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, do you support changing WP:N to mean intrinsic importance? I'd like to do that too, but as an alternative reason for notability, not a replacement. DGG (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think the Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects should be regarded as a reliable mainstream source. It has a quite substantial discussion which can be found online. Juzhong (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can also add a pseudoscience category, what do you think? I am not worried that people may think that it is a scientific principle, but that category may help. Things from the sky are always in folklore. Remember the Yellow rain scare? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Richard Arthur added enough sources to show that it's sort of notable. I expect wikipedia to have dedicated articles for this sort of obscure stuff, like Ballooning (spider). Article should be nudged a bit towards listing the prosaic explanations first and then explaining what UFO theorists propose as possible origin, to avoid the POV that this is really stuff falling from extraterrestrial aircrafts (I doubt that there is any official report anywhere giving any ground to this explanation, I think that they all say stuff about spiders and other explanations). (It could be merged somewhere, but UFO#Analysis is already full and it seems that we don't have a separate article for listing UFO phenomena.) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable UFO lingo even if nonsense, mentioned in dozens of books. But please rename it to something more specific and redirect angel hair to the more notable pasta. --Itub (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided are more than adequate to demonstrate that the belief in this stuff is a notable phenomenon. There is no requirement to have scientific sources for non-scientific subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angel_hair&oldid=1142653932"