Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent falling

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. Sandstein 08:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent falling[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for more than a year. This may be interesting and funny, but it is not a notable theory. St Anselm (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - While perhaps when originally tagged (Nov 2014), there were limited secondary sources (outside the original satirical Onion piece), that may no longer be the case. The limits and applicability of a WP:GOOGLETEST notwithstanding, there would seem to be some use of the term outside the primary source in the period since the original tag was added. (search <=12mo) That said, searches on news sources primarily match blogs, opinion pieces and associated comment sections - which would seem to erode a broad SIGCOV claim. (news search) Hence proposed "weak keep". If it is considered that the subject doesn't meet the same GNG criteria as other similar subjects, then the content would ideally be summarised/merged/redirected to a related article. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE the merge/redirect might be to Religious satire, Parody religion or similar article. If it is considered that the subject does meet GNG, then it might be appropriate to modify the article slightly - to highlight when, whether, and in what context the term has been used. (As it stands the article mainly focuses on the original coining/use in the Onion piece - hence I guess why the original tag was applied). Guliolopez (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Intelligent design. This is not really a topic, it is a joke, a parody of a real topic; so I think it would be quite appropriate given a brief mention under a new section of ID / criticism / parody. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We do have other articles of similar notable parodies (e.g., Russell's teapot, invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster), so being a parody in and of itself cannot be a reason for deletion. As a general rule, I do not think merging parodies into serious articles is a good idea. It could be that there exists some other reason for deletion (e.g., lack of secondary sources on the subject), but the Google test would seem to argue against this. However, I am unable to find any sources that I really feel are a slam dunk for GNG. This is mentioned, briefly, in "Atheism for Dummies", and a number of other Google books hits of lesser pedigree. There are plenty of iffy sources on a Google search, a couple of passing mentions in various news sources. There is this mention in Nature Physics. The original Onion article was reprinted several places, including the New York Times (e.g., http://www.quixoticpedagogue.org/satireself.pdf). Sławomir
Biały 10:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after some thought. TL;DR: the problem is reliable sources that establish notability, "reliability" is dependent on what the source is supposed to support, and sourcing is adequate for notability in consideration of WP:WHYN.

Source analysis: The wording "intelligent falling" seems to have originated with the 2005 onion piece. Though parodies based on "gravity denial" existed before, none seems to have achieved a similar status. IF seems to me to have achieved demonstrable internet fame, e.g. an entry in Urban Dictionary.

The mentions in the main press, while multiple, are fairly minor and refer to the Onion piece (e.g. this piece from a guardian.com columnist); I do not think a notability claim can be made resting on them being mentions in established media sources.

Policy analysis: A parody does not have weaker or stronger case for standalone notability based on the topic it makes fun of (WP:INHERITED). For instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster passes notability and deserves a separate article even though it could be mentioned/redirected/merged into an appropriate section of Creation–evolution controversy.

I do not think WP:WEBCRIT is really relevant here (that guideline is written for websites, not really for website content). The problematic point for a WP:GNG claim is the "reliable source" part. However, per WP:WHYN the "reliable source" requirement in GNG is there so that two kind of things are not admitted: (1) information of dubious factual accuracy, (i.e. non-verifiable) and (2) true but indiscriminate information (i.e. non-notable).

By the very nature of the topic (a pop culture thing), I doubt there are "reliable sources" about IF in the sense that they are demonstrably free of (1). But that is irrelevant, since the factual information of the article is not in doubt here. I would argue that sources such as Urban Dictionary (which is hardly a reliable source for factual assertions, since the editorial review process is based on upvotes/downvotes from visitors) establish that IF is famous and has been so on a reasonably long period of time. Sustained interest from a large subset of internet users makes in my view the subject "notable" per the WP meaning of the word.

Tigraan (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to recognize a WP:RS featuring this topic as the subject. I see mentions and sources which do not meet WP:RS. Can someone identify the 2-3 best sources, if this is to be kept? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be about the subject. They just need to discuss the subject. An example of such a reliable source is this thesis published in Nature Physics. Human Origins: What Bones And Genomes Tell Us About Ourselves by deSalle and Tattersall. Sławomir
Biały 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) Right, and Lawrence Krauss no less. But he gives "Intelligent falling" a passing mention in a discussion of "Intelligent design", and that is what it deserves in WP -- a passing mention somewhere in Intelligent design. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced that discussing parodies in a serious article is appropriate under WP:WEIGHT. Sławomir
Biały 14:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and potentially mention in an appropriate intelligent design article. The term does not appear to have significant coverage and only passing mention as satire compared to something like flying spaghetti monster. This would appear to be covered enough for content about a fringe subject per WP:PARITY, but not for a standalone article at this time unless it gets more coverage. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is significant coverage in secondary sources: [1][2][3][4]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#1 merely mentions it in passing as a Pastafarian belief; #2 similarly only has one line about it - hardly significant coverage; #3 is a self-published source (Xlibris); #4 also mentions it in passing as part of the Intelligent design debate. So no - there's no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. St Anselm (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2016 (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.