Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyame UFO incident (2nd nomination)

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. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 23:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coyame UFO incident[edit]

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

In 2009 when this was first nominated for deletion, the !Keep arguments were basically that because there were sensationalist cable shows and UFOlogy books written on the subject, that made this notable enough for an article. I think that we now have a better understanding of what makes a UFO incident notable... in particular we keep in mind WP:NFRINGE and WP:FRIND and look for independent, reliable sources that discuss the event independent of promotion of the UFO true believer agenda. Such sources have not been forthcoming in the five years since this was last AfD'ed. The sole source for the article these days is a self-published source and the fact that this story was told on A&E or History Channel ratings bate does not mean that the story is notable enough for a stand-alone article any more than the individual tales told on the Ancient Aliens show would be deserving of a stand alone article. We have plenty of articles on UFOs and UFO incidents where the fact that people tell this story can be mentioned, but it's time to let the article solely about this purported event go the way of other non-notable UFO incidents. jps (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia we determine Keep/Deletes based on WP:CONSENSUS, not Votes. Given WP:CCC, the 2009 delete discussion is a non-issue here, both for and against. WP:NFRINGE states "For a fringe theory to be considered notable...at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it." One such source would be THIS one from History Channel. Another example of independent coverage is THIS one published by Tor Books. As for "The sole source for the article these days is a self-published source", I always find it fascinating how many good-faith editors and deletionists point to SPS as if we had a ban on SPS. I would point such defractors to the fact that they may have missed that there is no umbrella ban. In any event, the sole source "these days" may appear to be the alleged SPS because, I notice, just last month an editor removed HERE all the in-text sourcing to the History Channel, and yet, -curiously- left intact the entire "Television" section, including the arguably unreliable Arts and Entertainment Network sources. An editor oversight? I don't know. A Wikipedia double-standard? I don't know. A contributors' conspiracy? Again, I don't know. Whatever the reason and his edit summary notwithstanding, the comparison made above to "individual tales told on the Ancient Aliens" is whole inadequate. THIS source on the origin of life states "there are many books and documentaries over the Coyame UFO incident", while this other one HERE on the history of the town of Coyame states "Viewers of the History Channel have doubtless noticed some of their numerous shows concerning UFO evidence, always including both believers and skeptics to leave the interpretation open to the viewer. A good example is their UFO Files: Mexico's Roswell video (History Channel 2005)". I don't perceive any "sentationalism" nor "UFO true believer agendas" even in these two SPS; these sources are far from that. In the end, the question to be asked is, IMO, if readers come across a reference to the Coyame UFO Incident in some other publications, will they be able to come to Wikipedia for information as to what such incident was? By deleting the article the answer is an obvious "No." Mercy11 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While mention of a topic on cable TV entertainment shows has a place in the "popular culture" section of articles about notable subjects, the shows themselves are not reliable or independent sources of fact. The same goes for books by UFOlogists like Bill Birnes or a non-notable author publishing his fringe theories via a vanity press. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I provided the keep arguments above. In addition, claims of the History Channel being "cable TV entertainment" have no basis - particularly when it is just a claim with not RS to back it up. A search in Google Books yields a whooping 125,000 hits for "'History Channel' documentary" but only a mere 37,000 hits for "'History Channel' entertainment". Its History Channel wikiarticle treats it in a similar fashion, with not a single mention of entertainment there but several references to "documentary". The dismissal into "popular culture" is interesting, but poor judgement given the mountain of source evidence available - especially when our guidelines state "For a fringe theory to be considered notable...at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it", and THIS fully satisfies that. As such, the vanity press claim comes without foundation as well - sorry but, again, those are claims without sources. Mercy11 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCECOUNTING with WP:GHITS is a terrible argument to make. There is plenty of evidence that the "History Channel" shows are not admissible as reliable and neutral sources when it comes to WP:FRINGE topics: [1], [2], [3], etc. In fact, the very Wikipedia page you cite as evidence includes an entire section explaining the problems with that tabloid channel: History Channel#Criticism and evaluation. It is, frankly, rather surprising anyone would argue otherwise, and I can only appeal to WP:COMPETENCE as a possible explanation. jps (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, I didn't think I would have to repeat myself ad nauseum once more but, in case it was missed, here it is once more: The relevant and applicable Wikipedia guideline here, WP:NFRINGE, states "For a fringe theory to be considered notable,...at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it", and THIS fully satisfies that. BTW, we don't pit long-established community-approved Wikipedia pillars that have resulted from time-consuming peer-reviewed consensus, such as WP:NFRINGE, against self-published Wikipedia opinion essays like the ones mentioned in the rebuttal above (i.e., WP:SOURCECOUNTING, WP:GHITS, and WP:COMPETENCE). Such 3 essays may be fine for clarifying a point but not as a valid argument positioned to replace a guideline. The History Channel#Criticism and evaluation wikilink above is likewise a WP:SPS and a poor choice as a valid delete argument, where "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines [are] given more weight than unsupported statements". Mercy11 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing any evidence of notability here. I look around and find next to nothing. It will be a stretch to even scrape together a single source for this. Goblin Face (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Arguments without arguments at THIS place. Mercy11 (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a stand alone article, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (i.e. WP:GNG). This topic fails that requirement, particularly as it relates to the reliability of sources. For example, William J. Birnes, a self-described "UFO expert", was apparently the "consulting producer" for the History Channel piece and the author of UFO Hunters: Book One. These are two of the sources that Mercy11 posits as reliable sources. First of all, notice that the History Channel piece presents the UFO incident as fact. Secondly, Birnes writes: "Moreover, had it not been for a mysterious report filed with an entity referred to as the Deneb team, the crash might have gone completely unnoticed by the UFO community."(p. 132) After detailing that report, he then gives credibility to the speculation that "ETs in human form who are monitoring the military's monitoring of UFOs" are responsible for writing it!(p. 138) Per WP:RS, reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources that spin details from a "mysterious report" that potentially originated with human-form ETs then present it as fact do NOT have reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Location (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have specific notability guidelines that apply to fringe theories. As such WP:FRINGE, and not WP:GNG, is the precise applicable guideline here. You are right that "Per WP:RS, reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but your argument fails miserably when you attempt to apply it to the published author instead of to the publisher because at Wikipedia we consider an author who has been published by a reliable publisher to have passed the requirement of "published by a reliable, independent publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Birnes's publisher, Tor Books, is a subsidiary of McMillan, one of the world's leading academic and peer-reviewed publishers. Second-guessing the publisher by attempting to do an exhaustive analysis of Birnes's published printed book, as you did above, and using character-assassination innuendo language, such as the "self-described UFOlogist" text above, on a NYU-educated Ph.D. who has written several books on the UFO subject, and to do so in an attempt to prove him as an unreliable source, boils down, IMO, to a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You spent the majority of your comment doing just that. However, we are not here to discuss whether or not the 2013 book by Birnes "UFO Hunters: Book One" is a notable piece of literature. Nor we are not here to argue whether the Coyame UFO incident was factual or not. And we are not here to decide whether or not the subject matter is notable enough based on whether or not we individually believe in UFOs (sort of analogous to arguing the Bible article shouldn't exists because the Bible is a fairy tale). We are here to discuss whether or not the Coyame UFO incident is an UFO incident notable enough to warrant its own article based on the existence of "at least one reliable secondary source [that has] commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it". Mercy11 (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on multiple points: 1) notability of a topic is not dependent upon whether the story is true, 2) notability of a topic is not dependent upon whether you or I believe the story to be true, 3) notability of a topic is not dependent upon whether you or I like the story, and 4) notability of a topic is dependent upon various aspects of coverage in reliable sources. Our interpretation of reliable sourcing for fringe-type articles appears to be where we differ. Your quotation of WP:NFRINGE has omitted a very important part of that guideline: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article [emphasis mine] if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." None of the sources that you have presented pass that test. Location (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see much evidence for notability here. I would expect to see at the least local news articles on the crash, but I can't find any. The incident has been debunked, albeit in a self-published source, which may not be reliable(!)--Auric talk 20:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which newspapers did you check and what did you search for? Does anyone know what the Spanish term for "UFO" is? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish for UFO is "OVNI". I checked Google (News) and Highbeam. I just checked Newsbank and found some articles with passing mentions under "Coyame crash".--Auric talk 21:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Featured on the History Channel as "Mexico's Roswell"[4] and referenced by contemporary news reports forty years after the incident.[5][6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no incident in 1974, so there is no need to search Spanish language resources for reports of a crash. All the material about this alleged incident is an uncritical regurgitation of what Torres and Uriarte wrote in Mexico's Rosewell. You could try to make an argument that this should pass WP:NBOOK, but we don't build Wikipedia articles based on unreliable sources (i.e. sources that cannot distinguish fact from hoax). Location (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the incident actually happened is besides the point. Hoaxes can be notable, too. See Piltdown Man as a classic example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated" and as such has plenty of reliable sources discussing it as such. On the other hand, the only sources that discuss this one or those gullible enough to present it as fact. Given that there are no reliable sources discussing this as an "alleged incident" or a hoax, is Wikipedia to present this as an event that actually happened? Hoaxes can be notable if they are discussed in reliable sources, but this one is not. Location (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever checked the article text? It is not presented "as an event that actually happened". Luckylouie's edit conforms to the standards. Your definition of "fact-checking" is not correct. "Verifiability, not truth" is the core of the policy WP:V, here. If we (or someone else) can verify that coyame people tell stories about an ufo-plane collision and crash, that's the fact checking. There are some other issues, though. Logos5557 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are in complete agreement about verifiability vs. truth in WP:V. My point is that if the article states that this is an alleged incident, then we need a reliable source stating that it is an alleged incident. Otherwise, the use of "alleged" means we have poisoned the well as to what we think the truth might be. Location (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that there is a motivation to promote "UFO Hunters" book, which seems as directly related to History channel coverage of this incident. So, why repeat the same source, when there is another one mentioning the incident? The so called "deneb report" is not convincing to me, looks quite amateurish. If I were Torres & Uriarte, and Birns later, I would build this myth on the "legendary" UFO factory in Mexico, owned by USA. There are "rumours" of 2 underground manufacturing plants (one in new-mexico, the other in mexico) built to construct remotely controlled UFOs for weaponry purposes. When you fly & control something remotely and if you do not have a collision avoidance technology capable of working at high speeds, then shit can happen sometimes. Logos5557 (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your intention was (whether critical, that is, with malice, or positive, that is, constructive) in your use of the word "motivation" and then linking to it edits that I made. If constructive, I thank you, and I will assume good faith and assume you are, in fact, addressing the issue and not attacking me personally, because if your intention was to attack me personally, (1) your "seems" clause is ridiculously speculative - at Wikipedia we determine issues based on facts, not speculation; (2) you have Zero percent (0%) clue as to what my alleged "motivation" was - if you wanted to know, you should had simply asked me rather than attempt to influence this forum with an unfounded allegation; (3) to save your asking now, I inform you I made the edits for the same reason I make every other edit in Wikipedia - to improve it: the previous version HERE was pointing to a source that was tagged as SPS, and my edit HERE updated the article with a source that is not a SPS converting it into a better version HERE. That is, the UFO Hunters book was not used as a source before and thus the nominator above made the claim that the article was a candidate for deletion becuase it had no RS as it was using Francisco Natera's (2012) "Coyame a History of the American Settler", a book published by a the self-publishing company Xlibris Corporation, as a source. As allowed by the AfD policy, I improved the article by removing the SPS and adding a non-SPS source in its place. Do you have a problem with that? So far it appears you do, and so I am asking you.

If you had wanted to improve the encyclopedia, rather than propagating the SPS inline tag when you made THIS copy HERE and thus perpetuating the SPS error, you could had as easily removed the alleged SPS cite before your copy to List of UFO Sightings (since there was another source there anyway) or, better yet, you could had found a SPS yourself and add it before you propagated the article SPS error. Your edit at List of UFO Sightings (yielding THIS unsightly version) was, IMO, either laziness or poor judgment. And to rebuk your "promotion" allegation, there is no need to "promote" the UFO Hunters book to anything: this discusion here is about the article Coyame UFO incident, and not about the book UFO Hunters which is not, and has never been, self-published. Mercy11 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I retract my "motivation to promote" remark, as it seems that that book was not in the article previously. I must have confused it with one of the repetitive citations to UFO Hunters-history channel. However, in the end, history channel UFO Hunters is directly related to the book, therefore adding it to the article is just to repeat the same source ("WILLIAM J. BIRNES is the New York Times bestselling coauthor of The Day After Roswell and The Haunting of America. He is the lead host and consulting producer of the UFO Hunters® series, and guest host of Ancient Aliens® series, and the guest expert on UFOs and American history on the America’s Book of Secrets®, all of which air on HISTORY®"). SPS tag/label is just to warn the reader and to create the potential of a better source in future. Self published sources are not forbidden completely, it requires some judgement. In this incident's case, since there is no other alternative, using it as a source will not bring the end of the world. Because, the book's theme is Coyame and its culture etc., not UFOs, which increases its "value" compared to Birnes' book. Not every argument is holy truth in AFD discussions/nominations. When UFO Hunters article is created, most probably it will be merged into UFO Hunters eventually. Logos5557 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is obviously not a notable fringe theory that deserves an article.Forbidden User (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, presuming there has been an exhaustive search for RS, and this ebook preview is the best anyone could come up with. This ebook preview is not a RS. As it is the only source, that kills the article right there. If someone has the actual book, and the book has additional content of an entirely different nature from this ebook preview, then the book itself should be cited, not this preview. This ebook preview is not a RS for at least these four reasons:

It appears to be little more than promotional material for the TV show. (Macmillan describes it as a companion book to the TV show.) The copyright for the book is owned by A&E Television Network (same parent company as the History Channel, A+E Television Networks), not the author, and not the publisher. A&E is a for-profit enterprise with a financial interest in promulgating this story as a historical event. That is a conflict of interest between A&E's profits and the contents of the text being true. (I.e., A&E will get more viewers and more ad revenue if UFO believers see them as the only source of information that they want, such as this story and others like it. Fringe adherents can be particularly vulnerable to this kind of financial exploitation because they have so few sources to begin with.)
This ebook preview is a primary source. The author is telling his own account of the group's trip to Mexico and his own interpretation of the evidence. He is a primary source with the same financial conflict of interest as A&E. (WP:WPNOTRS)
Most of the content, other than the first-person account of the trip to Mexico, is speculation, and it is described as such. (In some places, however, the text does treat the incident as fact. That self-contradiction in itself is very problematic for reliability.)
As this is an ebook preview, many, many pages are missing. When there are missing pages, there is missing context. Did one of the missing pages nullify what is said on the available pages? "The following account is fictitious. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is coincidental."

FWIW, the Macmillan name does not grant academic credibility to the book. Macmillan is not "one of the world's leading academic and peer-reviewed publishers," and in any case this is neither an academic book nor is it peer-reviewed. Pearson bought out Macmillan's academic publishing some time back (late 90s I think?), long before this book was published under the Tor Books (sci-fi & fantasy) imprint. (Pearson has been buying up academic publishers for a couple decades now - Benjamin Cummings, AWL, Macmillan, part of Harcourt, Prentice Hall and the rest of Simon & Schuster's academic publishing. Most college textbooks, regardless of the imprint, are now Pearson publications.) Dcs002 (talk) 10:32, 7 August 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.