Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unexplained boom

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 delete. By order of the Secret World Government! Sandstein 11:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained boom

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

Is this really a necessary article. Booms happen all the time. To me, this article is suggesting something of the supernatural or undercover government work. I question the relevance of the article. United States Man (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason to question the "keep" result at the 2010 AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unexplained booms. The well-sourced list of events is enough to justify keeping the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: indeed real, and perhaps linked to distant artillery practice. Jidanni (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because the news reports that something happened doesn't mean that we have to create an article about it. What's the encyclopedic content here? This is just a collection of news reports saying that something mysterious happened. I don't see any discussion of the phenomena itself that would satisfy WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it is called "unexplained". Jidanni (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many related but "unexplained" phenomena have led to scientific discoveries. Ignoring them is regressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.240.34 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NinjaRobotPirate: it's a List made up of WP:RAWDATA that's trying to be an article about a "phenomenon". Per WP:LISTN, this collection of stuff would need to have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". LuckyLouie (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add comment: A simple search at Google Scholar quickly reveals, among many results: "Strange booms: what's causing noises over the horizon?", New Scientist, Volume 213, Issue 2852, 18 February 2012; Richard K. Cook, "Strange Sounds in the Atmosphere", Sound: Its Uses and Control 1, 12 (1962) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2369552); MF Romig, DL Lamar, Strange sounds from the sky (1964); and a chapter entitled "Strange Booms" in Seymour Simon's Strange Mysteries from Around the World [1] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per Arxiloxos, although referring back to a comment from the 2010 AfD I think List of unexplained booms in the USA would be a more appropriate title. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 20:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As far as I'm aware the main theory on this is that it's to do with fracking (at least the recent ones). If someone were to add information on overarching theories on the phenomena that would probably solve the dilemma. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete A Fortean synthesis festival suggesting that these events have something to do with each other. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of nonnotable events'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This concatenation appears to be original research. The notability requirements of WP:LISTN seem not to have been met. It is possible that a detailed reading and summary of the scholarly articles mentioned above could result in an appropriate article, but this list is not it. --Bejnar (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The sources presented by Arxiloxos show that the topic is notable. There is much detailed study of such phenomena - see 'Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies' and it seems that volcanoes, meteors and other events may be causes. As we have a variety of pages covering such material at list of unexplained sounds and category:unidentified sounds, we should retain this well-sourced material per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, DGG, and Bejnar. This could be fixed, but right now it's just a random list of events with no connections. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete becuase it is redundant to list of unexplained sounds, which in itself is already pushing it in terms of being really vague and only quasi-notable. It looks like Julia (unidentified sound) should also be deleted/merged as has already been voted upon once before. I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is WP:Original research because no secondary source is cited which recognizes the general topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2014 (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.