Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (paranormal)

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 merge to Orb (optics). So Why 06:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orb (paranormal)

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

WP:POVFORK of Orb (optics) heavily sourced to WP:FRINGE sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Id like to know what is needed to cite an article on paranormal topics in general. This is reminiscent of another discussion I was involved in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape tree, which raised questions of RSes for "fringe'" or at least disputed topics, politically disputed in the other case. - Bri (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is thorough and substantial coverage of the topic in this article, and the article has many references, indicating it is a notable topic in parapsychology.Vorbee (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only difference to Orb (optics) is the presence of a person who does not know what it is and finds it spooky. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really no point; a few sentences in Orb (optics) or Ghost should be more than enough, unless evidence comes up that it's really a big thing in popular culture. So, far, it seems to be extremely anecdotal. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Orb (optics). Artw (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider a merge to Orb (optics) a good outcome. One or two lines added to that article (such as the one that was inexplicably removed) reflecting the amount of coverage in suitably independent reliable sources is all it needs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge looks like a good outcome to me, as well. It does mean that the paranormal template will be included. - Bri (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a merge to ghost hunting (similar to how the cold spot article was merged there) would suffice, in deference to those opposed to contaminating Orb (optics) with pseudoscientific nonsense. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the words "contaminating" and "nonsense" reflect WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nobody has made a fact- and policy-based reason to delete the article due to lack of notability. And navboxes are a legitimate and useful tool to help readers find related topics. Either the article stays with the navbox, or the navbox is moved to another meaningful location. - Bri (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Orb (optics) per Hob Gadling. This article is a WP:POVFORK of a topic for which an article already exists. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 23 June 2017 (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.