Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Redstar

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Redstar

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

Seems to not be notable enough to pass WP:FRIND requirements. One source, a credulous one, documents this "phenomenon" and it has not garnered outside notice, apparently. jps (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found two sources by the same author (Chris A. Rutkowski)[1][2] and a brief mention by a third.[3] Even if you believe this happened, it fails guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (events). Location (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's also what looks like a brief mention in this book, but I'm not really convinced that reliable sources have given this significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Location, if it is necessary, it can be added to other article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NinjaRobotPirate, the book "Tales told in Canada" identifies this collection of alleged UFO incidents as folklore, but there's not enough significant coverage for a stand alone article. Might warrant a brief mention at UFO sightings in Canada 1975-1976, Southern_Manitoba. Maybe. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that might work. I would definitely support a redirect, but I don't think there's anything to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objections to a redirect if others think it is warranted. Location (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or Move Content to Another Article Given that this occurred back in the 1970s, it's not surprising that there aren't a lot of online sources. What we really need is for someone to visit a Canadian library and check for printed sources. I don't think that anyone's done that. In any case, Canada.com lists this as one the 10 strangest Canadian cases of the past century[4] so I believe that this warrants inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, whether that is a standalone article, coverage in another article, or both, I'm open to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the The Canada.com article gives enough for a standalone article in that the content is a review of Rutkowski's book (noted above) and the mention of this UFO sighting is a two sentence blurb. Possibly a good argument for the redirect, though. Location (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the important thing from my perspective is that we don't lose the content. If it's redirected to another article that also covers Charlie Redstar, that's fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not impossible to source events that happened before the Internet was popular. Most of history happened before the Internet, but that hasn't stopped us from writing articles about these events. I'm not really very sympathetic to his argument. You'd think that World War I would be impossible to describe, as it happened before television, radio, and the Internet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're comparing World War I, one of the most epic events in all of history, with a perhaps minor UFO sighting as if they're supposed to get equal coverage in online sources? You can't possibly be serious. The lack of online sources is exactly what I would expect of a topic of this nature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are actually quite a few online "sources" that can be located discussing this topic. What there is a lack of are reliable sources and there is essentially nothing that I can locate which rises to the independent sourcing standard that we would need to write an article on this subject. Incidentally, News of the Weird is specifically not considered to be reliable, and that's as far as we've got with that Edmonton Journal story. jps (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't dispute that there are not enough online reliable sources to support the contention that this article's topic meets GNG but that's exactly what should be expected from a topic of this article's nature and time period. Absence of online evidence is not evidence of absence, certainly not forty years later. I'm not saying that this topic deserves a standalone article nor am I saying that it does. What I am saying is that what we need is for someone go to and check Canadian libraries for print sources. Apparently, nobody has done so. Until someone is willing to put in the time and research to truly evaluate this topic's notability, we should follow WP:BRD. The burden to change consensus is on those who favor the change. By default, this article should remain unchanged until that burden of proof is met. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you say no one checked? [5] It's actually fairly easy these days to do so. jps (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Ummmm...so when I ask if anyone's actually visited a Canadian library and checked for print sources, your response is to refer to an online search engine? Seriously? Do you know for a fact that all printed reliable sources have been scanned, indexed and are searchable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you understand how catalogs at libraries work? Do you understand that they catalog print sources? jps (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you saying that it does? Source, please. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:48, 4 July 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.