Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Materialization (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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Materialization (paranormal)

Materialization (paranormal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is a WP:SYNTHesized list of ectoplasm claims by old spiritualist mediums that are already covered in their own articles, or more generally, at ectoplasm (paranormal). I say synthesized, because in the lingo of spiritualists, a medium who supposedly created ectoplasm was known as a "materializing medium", but the concept of materialization isn't actually discussed in the sources we've been given. Someone has WP:ORed in a miracle of Jesus lacking any reliable source for their own opinion that he was performing paranormal materialization. Non-notable fringe claims already covered at Sathya Sai Baba and Swami Premananda have been tacked on to the list. What we don't have is any reliable and independent source that discusses the subject of "paranormal materialization" as a specific subject. How does it work, what's the mechanism, what's the history, where are the objective sources who've studied it exclusively, etc? Without anything like that to build the article on, we can only offer a dictionary entry (materialization is something spiritualists and two obscure gurus claimed to do) but not an encyclopedic article. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: An odd mix of fringe OR and synth based entirely on unreliable sources or misuse of reliable ones. My own searches did not provide any evidence that the topic is not mentioned at all in reliable independent secondary sources. Frankly, it's a bunch of fringe blither that has no place on Wikipedia. Nothing worth saving or merging. Can be deleted in it's entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per Dominus Vobisdu. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep We cover things which are religious beliefs and do not delete them as "fringe" when they have sourcing, even if the sources sometimes seek to disprove it. Far more than a dictionary definition and clearly notable. It can be pure bunk and fraud and still be notable. A very important part of 19th and 20th century "Spiritualism" was manifestations in which the departed would materialize in seances. They were often debunked by scientists who showed the tricks the medium played. It has been widely discussed in reliable sources. Arthur Conan Dole wrote in support and Houdini wrote in opposition, among many others. I removed the claims that Jesus "fishes and loaves" miracle and God's creation of the entire universe were "materialization" since it was unreferenced original research to tie those religious beliefs to the spiritualist medium's sort of materialization phenomena. Note that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," and editing is a better idea than deletion when the subject is as notable as this one. The article is not just based on what some dictionary says: countless books pro and con on spiritualism discuss it. Edison (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Edison. I completely agree WP covers notable bunk and fraud and mediums "materializing" things was an important part of 19th and 20th century Spiritualism. But it's all been already covered at another article: ectoplasm (paranormal), rendering this article as completely redundant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep "How does it work, what's the mechanism..": What a twaddle. Let's delete the gravity article also then, for we do not know it's mechanism yet. Apart from that, this and other additional remarks in nominator's argumentation imply that as if we're after the truth but not verifiability; which would be the complete opposite of WP:V. The topic in question is notable and well sourced. As I stated in article talk page, materialization is a topic specific also to the false prophetism/prophecy, not only to the ectoplasms allegedly furnishing during seances. I'm sure there are enough coverages/mentions in theological scholarly publications. If you think that some of the material may belong to ectoplasm (paranormal), then the thing you should have done was to ask the opinions of others and move the related content if there was any consensus; not to take the article to AFD. Logos (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep subject is associated with several Indian gurus, not called ectoplasm (paranormal) in this context, and extensively treated in several independent reliable sources by parapsychologist Erlendur Haraldsson and psychologist Richard Wiseman.

• Independent reliable sources:
  • Erlendur Haraldsson book Miracles are my visiting cards which was agreed to be a reliable source in an official mediation User:BostonMA/Mediation. The book also compares miracles attributed to Sathya Sai Baba with the miracles attributed to Jesus Andries (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (removed PDF that did not work 18:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC))
  • I only read a summary of this sources: Thomas, Caroline M.,‘God Men, Myths, Materializations and the Kalās of Immortality’, in Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 55, No. 816, 377-403, July 1989 Andries (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Richard Wiseman and Erlendur Haraldsson Investigating Macro-PK in India: Swami Premananda April 1995. Andries (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• [1], [2], [3], a source for both ectoplasm and materialisation: [4] etc. Alternative keywords: "pseudo-prophecy", "pseudo-miracles+theology", etc. Logos (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Journal of the Society for Psychical Research and Journal of Scientific Exploration etc are known for promoting extreme fringe views, they are not science journals. Goblin Face (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment So, what's the point, what do you expect? It's completely normal for fringe topics to be covered in allegedly fringe journals. These sources are for notability/verifiability, we do not need completely scientific/scholarly publications. Check past arbitration rulings, such as Paranormal:3 layer cake, paranormal tag, adequate framing etc., and policies/guidelines to grasp how framing the subject determines the context. Logos (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Goblin Face, could you please be more specific about your objections to the sources that user:Logos and I (user:Andries) listed? Please note that the listed sourced found two out the three Indian gurus treated fraudulent i.e. Swami Premananda and Gaytri Swami. Only in the case of the famous Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba the listed sources found no evidence of fraud. Andries (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable to have an entire article to itself. The same content is found on the ectoplasm and mediumship articles, so no content would be lost. Goblin Face (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete This is not an encyclopedic topic. There are zero reliable sources that differentiate a "materialization" from an Apparition or Apparitional experience. To claim otherwise is to essentially WP:POVPUSH in the form of demanding a WP:POVFORK of those articles. jps (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

After ectoplasm, now comes apparition; perhaps you don't have sufficient expertise.. As stated in apparition article, there isn't any material involved. Above mentioned sources are reliable and differentiate materialization properly. Logos (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Note also that, german wikipedia and some very old sources have separate entries for materialization, ectoplasm and others. Merging the two topic into one article, would be to interpret these two different phenomenons as the identical on our own and to decide that a merge should be fine, WP:SYNTHily . Logos (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That German article looks like a stub based on the English article. There is, however, a good reason to keep the different wikis in sync now that we have wikidata, because it is hard to develop an equivalence that is one-to-many there. At least, I've had a devil of a time when in that situation. LaMona (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that german article is based on this article, because the sources are quite different. Logos (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Unfortunately, the two articles have too much overlap, so the editors need to decide what is different between the two phenomena and edit the articles accordingly. It does make sense to me that materialization is the phenomenon and ectoplasm is the stuff of some materializations, but not all. The articles need to make the difference clear, and have less repetition between them. LaMona (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep WP must include a discussion of this alleged phenomenon, because there is a large literature about it, and it doesn't matter for the purpose of having an article whether or not the phenomenon actually happens. The title is appropriate, for it is the normal English word for it. Wxtoplasm is I think used in a somewhat broader meaning,--it is considered sometimes to be the cause of materialization, but it is used in other senses also. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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.