Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star jelly

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 Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star jelly

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

This is a conglomeration of a variety of stories all having the theme of there being a thick unknown substance. Essentially none of the references use the term "star jelly" and many of the references don't even reference the heavens in their description of the mush. This, therefore, is an original research synthesis. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is about the concept, not the word. Synthesis requires putting forth a new view, not combining synonyms from disparate works. The references need to be formatted and external links converted into inline citations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article cites and quotes enough sources to show this is a real concept. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a case of undue synthesis. Instead it describes a lot of cases of what is generally termed star jelly by outside sources. The article doesn't claim anything novel/unique/unciteable using external sources — as is typical for WP:OR. Otherwise the article is a little unstructured and the topic is IMHO very weird, but there's nothing in it that would make it subject to deletion, irrespective of the article topic. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: ScienceApologist is wrong in claiming that the outside sources doesn't use the term "star jelly". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems counterfactual and the topic is quite notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and our fringe theory rules. It does not violate our rules on making an undue synthesis, as much of it is exact quotes. If anything, it needs copyediting. This nomination is another of the "I'm embarrassed" variety. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources like this and this (which were already cited in the article) clearly use the term star jelly and do discuss the belief that it falls from the sky. Zagalejo^^^ 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator.Edward321 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing at all wrong here. Beach drifter (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2010 (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.