Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian ufology

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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian ufology[edit]

This is a WP:POVFORK from Ufology meant to hide fringe soapboxing for some sort of "nationalistic" ufology. There are no reliable sources which disambiguate Australian ufology as different from any other nation's ufology. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is the (3rd nomination) for delete? Vufors (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When? Not at AfD. Please give details. --Bduke (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yes at AfD - [1] 26 January 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus - [2] 14 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was keep See [1]. Oddly the first AfD results are deleted???? Look at the header of AfD 2nd... Who did that? But this 3rd AfD is Astonishing and lacks WP:GOODFAITH. These topics types are constantly under someform of attacked. Vufors (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the confusion is because of the change of title from upper case "U" to lower case. The previous AfD proposals are:

--Bduke (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the nominator's argument. This article has lots of interesting and verifiable information about UFOs in Australia. I'm inclined to say keep, unless a clearer argument for deletion is given. --Bduke (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The article is a collection of original research and fringe views. Few of the citations appear to support the claims being attributed to them, and even fewer qualify as being reliable sources. The heavy citing of files in the National Archives is a bit of a give away that the article is the views of whoever wrote it and relies on their OR and/or obscure references. Nick Dowling *(talk) 08:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nominator's argument is ?????? - Well this AfD lacks WP:GOODFAITH. Vufors (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changed to Keep: The article must have taken a lot of work (the author should save it to his/her home computer), but it lacks reliable sources. I can't believe the National Archives of Australia has so many images and scans of UFO sightings. The NAA images would work in the article if they were combined with some commentary or explanation from reliable sources (See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources). However, at present, the article lacks reliable sources to string those NAA documents together. Apart from the NAA images, the rest of the article is just sourced to blogs, discussion forums, and home websites hosted on OzEmail, which is not good enough for Wikipedia. --Lester 11:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: I changed my vote from delete to Keep, after finding a reliable source in The Sydney Morning Herald. Reliable sources such as this one should be added to the article.--Lester 00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The said NAA files are official Australian Government & RAAF files = WP:N WP:RS and the "Commentry" is self evident, Wiki users can read these NAA files. Vufors (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per lack of independent reliable sources establishing the topic as notable independent of the worldwide UFOlogy movement. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepHave referenced this page on a number of occasions and found it most helpful. I suspect it get hit hard by skeptics because it is so well sourced. Usually on Wikipedia page there is a gaping hole in sources and reference, so I would expect editors that do not like odd topics will try and reduce it to a shell or demolish it in one whole effort. – so yes to a keep 124.180.23.63 (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — 124.180.23.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. I have indicated that I think this article should be kept, and I stick with that view, but this article has many major problems and there are several confusing matters. The question of the previous AfD discussions is dealt with above. The change of title to make "ufology" start with lower case made it appear that this was the first AfD proposal. The talk page of the article appears to have been redirected at some point to User talk:Vufors, and it still in part reads like a user's talk page. It illustrates the sense I get that User:Vufors thinks he owns this page. The article was nominated for good article status and failed badly. All the comments on that application, now on the article's talk page, are still pertinent and have not been addressed. On the opposite side, it does look as if the nominator supports having articles with a scientific point of view (SPOV), when we aim to be from a neutral point of view. The claims of science and the claims of people who have observed UFOs should both be in the article but both well sourced. The article is full of sources, but is not clear there are enough reliable sources there. The nominator's reason for deletion: "There are no reliable sources which disambiguate Australian ufology as different from any other nation's ufology" does not seem to be a good reason for deletion or accurate. The article is about observations of UFOs and reaction to those observations in Australia. I think it is perfectly reasonable to cover that, as Australia is not the same as, for example, the USA. So, there are problems. Nevertheless I think this article should be improved and not deleted. If kept the reader should be warned by a set of the usual article tags showing concern about lack of reliable sources and the possible presence of original research. --Bduke (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Meaning treat it as a spin-out article of ufology per WP:SUMMARY? I still disagree that this topic meets WP:N, but I think that that would be fair if kept. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the page is a chronological sociological source it does not try and explain what ufo are, it gives wiki people a insight to Australian ufology. This would be a complex undertaking and seems to be in the right direction to improve over time. 58.175.178.240 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — 58.175.178.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Nick Dowling. What secondary source actually points to the notability of this topic? Assize (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a fair and open repository for similar material in less worthy supplementary (? disguised) articles. The matter is undoubtedly notable but the treatment needs considerable improvement and condensation. Bjenks (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps Australian ufology is not different from any other country's ufology, but this article goes into lots of details about incidents and organizations specific to Australia, which would take to much space if merged into the main article. --Itub (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It needs work but so does 99% of Wikipedia, whats new. So, each country would have a very different take on the ufo history... It is an important window into the australian culture. In my reading on this contentious subject the USAF do the US collection, the RAF/MOD do the British collection and the RAAF do the Oz stuff... these files are now being released to their respective government archives. As someone has noted, this type of product/page is very hard to produce and although there are some issues I think it does a reasonable job in providing the reader a launching point to what has happened in this cultural melee. 202.161.73.61 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 202.161.73.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Per Bduke and Bjenks comments above Satu Suro 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think ScienceApologist is making fun of Wikipedia editors and just wasting our time by nominating this extremely long and extensively referenced article for deletion with "soapbox" "explanation". More sense would make splitting this article into few smaller ones. 71.194.184.182 (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — 71.194.184.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Notable concept, sourced material. --Trippz (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced; generally NPOV; style could be improved in places, but that is not a reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there're some books focusing on ufology in Australia, so this topic is notable. Also all the statements are verifiable. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2008 (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.