Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aligned, Multiple-transient Events in the First Palomar Sky Survey: Difference between revisions

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia’s content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Aligned, Multiple-transient Events in the First Palomar Sky Survey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I’m not sure why we need an article about a questionable academic paper published just last month, but I’m not seeing any significant notability here. Almost half the references are just about UFOs in general and predate the paper in question by – in some cases – decades. Of those that are relevent, two are personal accounts by an author, one is a literal Twitter/X post by one of the authors, one is a blog post, and in fact I can only identify one really good English source [1] which ends up being the vast bulk of the reception section, where you wouold expect significant criticism to go. This feels like a coatrack to include coverage of the paper, but I’m just not seeing sufficient coverage to make it look like we need this article. – Bilby (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While articles about a single paper are not conventional, individual research (spurious though it may be) will still pass the WP:GNG if it’s received WP:SIGCOV. Major coverage (excepting more incidental mentions) of this paper(s) from October 2025 include:

– A 23-paragraph feature on the paper(s) in Ingeniøren [2]

– A 17-paragraph feature in Scientific American [3]

– A 22-paragraph feature on space.com [4]

– A 12-paragraph feature on Gizmodo [5]

– A 6-paragraph feature in Der Spiegel [6]

– A 14-paragraph feature in USA Today [7]

– A 9-paragraph feature in Vice [8]

– A 12-paragraph feature in Astronomy [9]

– A 7-minute segment on NBC News [10]

– A 6-minute segment on WFLD-TV, [11] etc.

Moreover, this is not a case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as the papers were the subject of SIGCOV for many months preceding their actual publication, e.g.:

– A July-dated, 13-paragraph feature on IFL Science [12]

– An August-dated, 7-paragraph feature on the website of TV4 Sweden, [13] etc.

This is beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Indeed, it’s extraordinarily exceptional for a paper with zero citations and that, by all appearances, is not being taken seriously by the academy. Chetsford (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Most of those are nothing:

• [14] Brief summary of findings
• [15] Summary of findings
• [16] Summary of findings
• [17] Brief summary of findings
• [18] Summary of findings with tiny bit of commentary
• [19] Interview with author summarising findings
• [20] Interview with author with summary of findings
• [21] DOn’t have access – behind a paywall.

Papers get brief mentions in the press all the time. Every new potential cancer study that goes nowhere seems to. Standard routine coverage. What I am looking for is actual, valid notability enough to say that his newly published paper actually matters beyond any run of the mill publication that is interesting enough to get the occasional mention in the mediajust after it is published. I’m not seeing it, and given that it has barely been out 10 days I’m not surprised. – Bilby (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what you’ve creatively described as “brief mentions” are articles with word counts longer than the paper itself. Moreover, by definition, a feature is not a “mention” – a “mention” is where a subject is mentioned (ergo the name) ancillary to a different topic, not where the entire article is itself about the subject.
Additionally, you didn’t address Scientific American which includes analysis of the paper’s flaws from five different scientists uninvolved with the paper, or Ingeniøren, which includes two separate analyses. “DOn’t have access – behind a paywall.” See WP:OFFLINE.
“mention in the mediajust after it is published” That doesn’t apply here as coverage (again, I’ve excluded mere mentions, and only included features) span a period of four months (July 2025 [when paper was in preprint] to October 2025) so NOTNEWS should be objectively crested. Chetsford (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mention Scientific American in the nomination. And I mention the paywall to be honest that I wasn’t able to check it. However:

Much of what you’ve creatively described as “brief mentions” are articles with word counts longer than the paper itself.

This is blatantly false. One paper is 22 pages long and the other 9 pages. The longest of the articles you linked to is less that a tenth of that, much of which is just background. You’re an admin. Are you saying you can’t tell the difference between the length of a 22 page paper and a single page article? Or did you just write that without looking? – Bilby (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

… in which you refer to it by stating “I can only identify one really good English source”. I’m still unclear why you seem only willing to consider English-language sources? Chetsford (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not. I am well aware that non-English sources are fine, I just can’t reasonably evaluate them, so I acknowledged that. – Bilby (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can and have evaluated Ingeniøren and Der Spiegel. Combined with Scientific American, you can AGF that your concerns are entirely mollified. Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to look into them myself, I’m afraid. I don’t think I can AGF on this now. – Bilby (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine, it’s no hurry if you’d like to set your !vote into abeyance until you’ve had time to conduct WP:BEFORE. Chetsford (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsfield, I carefully checked out every article in the references, and looked for more indepth coverage. Please stop being insulting. I know the process, and was completely honest about what I found, even in the small number of cases where I could not check them directly. – Bilby (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not trying to be insulting. But you’ve nominated an article for deletion without, by your own admission, checking several sources and then stating very plainly you have no intention to AGF to those who have. Editors do put time and effort into developing articles and to dismiss that time with such a cavalier attitude is itself rather insulting. Chetsford (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered instead whether the lead author might be the more appropriate article (with an eye towards WP:BLPFRINGE)? jps (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn’t meet the standards of NPROF due to lack of named chair, and low H-index, and virtually all of the voluminous coverage of her is of a non-biographical nature in relation to this paper and its companion. A BLP would likely be merged or redirected into an article about the paper. Chetsford (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree she does not meet WP:NPROF, but she is a minor fringe celebrity within the Ufology community. Not a lot of biopic pieces on her yet, unfortuantely, but it really is a personality-driven topic. jps (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“For a primary study by itself to be notable it has to really change science” I’m not familiar with this policy. Can you link to it? Chetsford (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you wholeheartedly in principle. In application, however, I have to respectfully disagree as Ingeniøren, Der Spiegel, and Scientific American (though the latter two are written for a lay audience) are not popmedia like Vice or space.com. Chetsford (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly impressed by the first one’s piece either. The author does not have the technical expertise in the area he is writing about and seems rather credulous about the larger context. jps (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my “popmedia” evaluation seems to be much more common in the areas adjacent to UFOlogy — even in erstwhile *serious* journalism. jps (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Based on the paper’s conclusion …the authors dismiss “several prosaic explanations” and advance two hypotheses to explain their findings: that of a “previously undocumented atmospheric phenomenon triggered by nuclear detonations” or that “nuclear weapons may attract UAP [UFOs]”… the paper may deserve a couple of summary paragraphs at UFO reports and atomic sites. That would be a good holding place until either the paper itself, or likely Beatriz Villarroel, gains more notability in WP:FRIND sources to justify a spin off article. – LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• While the paper has received notable short-term media attention, the coverage cited appears largely routine and time-bound rather than the kind of sustained, secondary analysis required by the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). Nearly all cited sources are journalistic summaries or interviews published within days or weeks of release, which fits the pattern of WP:NOTNEWS rather than demonstrating lasting encyclopedic significance.

Most articles (e.g., Space.com, Gizmodo, Vice, USA Today) are reporting on the existence and claims of the paper, not providing critical or independent scientific analysis. The few sources that do include external commentary—such as Scientific American—address the topic within the broader context of science reporting and skepticism. That constitutes coverage of a news event, not enduring notability of the paper itself.

Additionally, the presentation of the article on Wikipedia raises concerns about WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. The extended framing around “Ufology” and “pseudoscience” in the lead section creates an interpretive narrative not present in the cited reliable sources, which risks editorial synthesis rather than neutral summary. The scientific paper itself was published in a reputable journal (PASP), and it should be described in that scientific context rather than in relation to fringe or pseudoscientific discourse unless such association is clearly established in multiple reliable, secondary analyses.

Given these factors, the article does not yet demonstrate significant, independent, and in-depth coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The coverage is overwhelmingly news-cycle–driven, suggesting WP:TOOSOON.

The content as written veers toward coatrack and synthesis. A reasonable approach would be deletion or merger of the current article into a broader, related topic such as Search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), Disclosure movement, or UFO reports and atomic sites, until the paper or its authors receive demonstrable long-term secondary evaluation in the scientific literature or major academic commentary. ~2025-31788-83 (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to !vote, ChatGPT. Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They also tried to blank a section of the article (caught by pending changes protection). Smells like a sockpuppet of a banned user to me…. —Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s very robust off-WP organizing right now to delete this article so it’s likely we may see additional socks and AI-generated !votes. I’ve placed the Not a Vote template at the top of the page but I’m not sure there’s much else that can be done. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]