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. Opinions are all over the place. There is a vague consensus that the article should be renamed, such as Orb (photography); that can be done outside of the AfD by editors being bold and just doing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Orb (optics)

Orb (optics) (  | 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 subject apparently doesn't exist within the field of optics. Check all of the sources that are reliable. NONE of them identify the visual artifacts as "orbs".

Suggest adding a section to ghost hunting to cover the topic of paranormal believers thinking they've seen "orbs" in their photographs. jps ( talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep There's already a section about this at Backscatter#In_photography, which identifies this as the main page. If this page seems an unwarranted spinoff then just merge back into that section. That's ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 15:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I think it could be justifiable to have an article on backscatter (photography), but the article we are discussing here is not about backscatter. There is a lot more that has been claimed to be an "orb" than just backscatter. jps ( talk) 15:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • The current text is very much about backscatter. Insofar as there are other causes of such optical effects, that's fine too as the general topic is notable. See The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography for a reasonable encyclopaedic treatment. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Orb photography might be yet another option (at least it's not claimed as a field of optics!), but we already have spirit photography which is essentially what Peres is referencing. jps ( talk) 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete and, if applicable, merge whatever may be useful wherever else. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete and merge any useful non-fringe material to a section of backscatter. Merge I have merged pseudoscientific/paranormal claims to spirit photography with the non-paranormal explanations and linked to backscatter, seen here. At ghost hunting, add I have added a sentence or two and a pointer link to spirit photography, seen here. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

So they're backscatter now? And yet yesterday you were adamant ( Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Orb_(optics)) that they were "lens flare" and then a "flash" artifact (they're neither). Maybe find out what they really are before advocating deletion of an article you've clearly not even read? Andy Dingley ( talk) 06:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I wasn’t “adamant”, just offering suggested photographic terms. Anything’s better than a fringe term. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Sources establish notability 80.111.16.75 ( talk) 17:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  A notable attempt at renaming a known optical phenomenon so that it sounds mysterious does not require an independent article.- Mr X 🖋 12:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is not a term of art actually used in photography as far as I can tell, the correct term is backscatter. It seems to exist largely as a reflection of debunking of a ridiculous paranormal claim. Guy ( Help!) 17:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Rename Orb (paranormal) currently redirects to Orb (optics) - this is a notable paranormal talking point; it's not a notable photography talking point though. So I'd recommend a name change is more appropriate than a deletion. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

It remains to be seen that this is a "notable" talking point -- that there's a lot of talk about something doesn't automatically make it notable. 842U ( talk) 00:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• • Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (paranormal). jps ( talk) 20:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I'd also like to point out that it's WP:PROFRINGE to call this stuff "paranormal". This isn't a term academics use to refer to, say, ghosts, but it's embraced and promoted by, say, ghost hunters and in pop culture. Outside of the fringe, there's nothing "paranormal" about any of these things: they are in fact completely normal occurrences. Sooner or later we're going to need to discuss how this word has been used to date on the project, and now is as good a time as any to start rooting its use out where it's being applied to promote fringe concepts. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Orb (photography). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep As a notable and sourced term, and keep the paranormal section too.

This is a sheer bad-faith nomination on no valid grounds, just a fit of pique after yesterday's attempts to blank the paranormal section of the article [1] [2] were rejected by multiple editors. So yesterday this was a term of science so important that it must remain unsullied by paranormal spookery? But today the whole thing has to go as "just not notable"? Andy Dingley ( talk) 06:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Also, if a valid nomination, why weren't the past AfDs linked? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (paranormal) has already decided that the paranormal aspect should be merged to here, i.e. that both the primary topic is the rationalist optical artifact, whilst also including the paranormal aspect as a notable and widely discussed one (amongst those hunting for circular glowing spirits) and incumbent upon WP to give a real explanation for. Andy Dingley ( talk) 06:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Rename Orb (paranormal) currently redirects to Orb (optics) - this is a notable paranormal talking point; it's not a notable photography talking point though. So I'd recommend a name change is more appropriate than a deletion. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Trim and Merge with Bokeh or Circle of confusion. We don't have to adopt ghost hunter terminology for an optical phenomenon that is well-understood. I would also support delete as a close second choice. Imagine if we referred to birefringence as angel auras or lens flare as portals to another dimension. We're not obliged to have article for ever name that someone has given to something that already has a name.- Mr X 🖋 11:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

But they have almost nothing to do with circle of confusion. Such circles might be what make them look like "orbs", but the key aspect here is the backscatter from dust particles, creating those orbs where there wouldn't otherwise be one. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

True, it's only tangentially related to circle of confusion. I don't think you mean "backscatter from dust particles". The same effect is caused by sensor dust, specks on the lens, raindrops, bugs, and so on. It's simply small objects out of focus that stand out because they are well-illuminated relative to the rest of the image. In the case of sensor dust or lens specks, the effect is the opposite in that the orbs are darker that the rest of the image. I think this subject would get lost in the backscatter article. Maybe it should be moved to a ghost article and simply explained as a common optical phenomenon. - Mr X 🖋 12:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

simply explained as a common optical phenomenon I'm happy to have one article, ghost and optics, and separate at either Orb (optics) or Orb (paranormal) . That's the result of the previous AfD. Having both viewpoints in one article also constrains the whoo-whoo science. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Spirit photography may be a good one-stop article to put all these things. jps ( talk) 14:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I would support a merge to Spirit photography Simonm223 ( talk) 17:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

LuckyLouie has already pre-empted this AfD and has done that. Of course there's nothing in there (compared to what we already have at Orb (optics)) to explain how these arise, and so it's very one-sided. That sort of AfD pre-emption is near the opposite of "good editing". Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I would argue that such explanations are better handled at a location like visual artifact (which is an article that is in desperate need of some loving care, it seems). jps ( talk) 18:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

This doesn't clearly explain how the artifacts arise? I must need new eyeglasses. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Compare Orb (optics) Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, Merge, or Rename I don't have any strong opinion on what happens to this material, but at the very least there shouldn't be an article named "Orb (optics)" when no optics experts would call the phenomenon described by that name. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 20:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Well I've always called them orbs (admittedly taking the lead from the ghost hunters) and I'm a laser physicist. What else are you going to call them? They have one name, it's not unreasonable, and why invent a new one? Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Do most scientists take the lead from ghost hunters? If so, is there a laser physics journal (or any scientific journal) we can cite that identifies them as “orbs”? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I can imagine The Amazing Randi making it some point of honour to always refer to "regurgitated muslin" when others would say "'ectoplasm'", and with the raised-eyebrow-quotes being implicit. But for optics, then optics doesn't have a specific term for this, the ghost hunters clearly do call them "orbs" and so why invent another name? What would you call them? "Circles"? Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Since only ghost hunters use the term (and our WP:FRIND sources make it clear they are commenting on the use of the term by ghost hunters) several suggestions have been made about what articles to place the ghost hunter use of the term in ( ghost hunting, spirit photography, etc.) For the concept of floating particles in photography, several suggestions have been made about what articles to place that information in, ( visual artifact, backscatter, etc.). If we are going to have a dedicated article using ghost-hunter lingo as its title, " Orbs", it should clearly identify: "In ghost hunting, an orb is a typically circular artifact on an image, created as a result of flash photography illuminating a mote of dust or other particle, that is interpreted as a spirit presence." Please get it into your head the issue is context, not content. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is not a particularly bad article for its length. I understand it raises the hackles of some people for the encyclopedia to have articles on woo-woo stuff, but that shouldn't be a motivation to go searching for weak excuses to delete it. To be honest, I'm surprised the crazy claims have been nearly removed from the article. There are a number of books (from fringe, but not necessarily vanity press publishers) that make a big deal of it. I agree that the crazy claims are crazy, but they're not non-notable. ApLundell ( talk) 22:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep/Merge/Alter - The subject matter should be here but I don't like the name, it's obfuscating wht the article is really about. I think it needs a rename or that the contents should be split into the appropriate places. Exactly how though would likely depend on who chooses to initiate the work and how they go about it. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 13:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Maybe it could fit into whatever the photographic equivalent of Visual artifact is? Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 13:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep 842U ( talk) 00:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep/Rename - Good to have one simple article to explain the topic and less in other articles. It was a craze back then and this will help inoculate future outbreaks. Should rename to orb (photography) or orb photography (which go to different places) because people would rarely see them without a camera. The redirects do need a cleanup. It is still relevant, even if just for humor [3] or style [4]. I know these are not backscattering, but do use the circle of confusion. Speaking of other articles, would you really want to explain this at the circle of confusion article? That would lead to confusion. Visual artifact is mostly just a list page. The backscatter article in the lead says diffuse reflection, but the photo of a glory (optical phenomenon) is more a retroreflector [5]. Also, there is a new use for “Orb” in photography, creating them with light painting [6]. StrayBolt ( talk) 04:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete/Merge/Rename as suggested by MrX. - Scarpy ( talk) 20:18, 21 August 2018 (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.