Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (4th 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 no consensus. I weighted the various comments, and in the final examination, it seemed both sides set forth equally strong arguments. As such, it was impossible to determine consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exopolitics[edit]

This article was AFD'd and deleted seven months ago, and salted. So far, I see no evidence that the prominence, or notability, of this fringe concept has progressed significantly to warrant an article. And on a process point of view: as this article was a protected redirect to Black Holes and Revelations (which contains a song called "Exo-Politics"), the method of recreation (asking for unprotection on ANI) is against our current process for undeleting salted articles (that is, sandboxing in userspace, and presenting at DRV). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The article was only just started a day ago; immediately nominating it for deletion seems inappropriate. Besides it already seems notable and has a few sources, so why not give it a chance? Artichoker^[talk] 14:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some reliable sources, all found via Google Scholar: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Artichoker^[talk] 14:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't inappopriate when the recreation was out of process. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems appropriately verifiable, reliably sourced, and neutral for now, though it will require continued attention as it was a crank magnet in the past. And the redirect was labeled {{R with possibilities}}; it seems a little strange to view unprotecting that as out-of-process, though going through DRV would have been better. I suppose it would still be possible to review the draft in DRV, but we seem to be doing it here instead, so I don't see any point in shifting to a different forum; in that sense, unlike Artichoker, I don't view the new AfD as premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is essentially original research. Do not be fooled by the supposed sourcing. Many of the statements are synthesized out of whole-cloth to try to create some idea that there is a coordinated concerted "exopolitical effort" underway. There isn't. Note the over-the-top language and the bizarre use of the term light year. Not only is it original research, it's also a soapbox for the kind of intellectually backwater rhetoric employed by the woo-woos in these groups. Let them actually get some recognition beyond News-of-the-Weird spots and their own orchestrated "press conferences" and we'll create an article on the subject. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrosociobiology. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again. Still not a subject covered by anything I would call reliable sources. It reads as an apologia mixed with novel synthesis. There does not seem to have been any significant change in the status of this subject since it was deleted entirely within process previously. Come back when the official response to those who propose an official system for handling extraterrestrial contacts is something other than to laugh and point. In any case, the article is basically a coatrack on which the nutjobs at the Exopolitics Institute can hang promotion of their little organisation. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Imo Accounting4Taste said it best in a previous AfD: "There is a place in Wikipedia for the annotation of the existence of such beliefs, but that's a far cry from (a) explaining them in great detail, which leads to (b) their being lent a scrap of credence by being so annotated in an encyclopedia. I think WP:FRINGE comes into play here. The more that a theory is -- let's call it "difficult to accept" -- the greater amount of proof and verifiability by being considered notable by reliable sources ought to be present. The germ of information that defines the word "exopolitics" has been completely obscured here by WP:FRINGE". Springnuts (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's just one example of substantial coverage, an article on the subject in the Toronto Star [8] and here are the google news hits just for the last month [9]. The term is well established and the subject has received substantial coverage. What's the big deal? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources and previous AfD. Verbal chat 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first glance it seems well-sourced, but if you actually look at the sources you'll find that they're either self-published "policy papers" or news articles that tangentially mention the phrase "exopolitics". Skinwalker (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again and salt. "Exopolitics" is a buzzword coined by a small subset of the UFO-conspiracy community. As a buzzword, it is not notable. The overall concept of belief, by UFO conspiracists, that 20th century history has been orchestrated by secret alien-human pacts, may well be notable, but it's already covered in UFO conspiracy theory, UFO religion, etc. (One of the allegedly reliable sources cited, a self-published article by a guy with a PhD, says "the concept of exopolitics has been implicit in terms such as the 'Flying Saucer Conspiracy', 'UFO Cover Up', 'Cosmic Watergate', etc. that have been a standard part of UFO literature for over 5 decades.") As such the article on exopolitics is basically a POV fork. Oh yeah, and all this was explained in the last three AFDs, so can we stop this already? <eleland/talkedits> 18:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and also, people please stop claiming that because you found documents containing "exopolitics" in a Google Search, all of a sudden WP:RS requirements are met. You've found extensive coverage in a small set of UFO buff websites, and extremely trivial coverage in reliable sources - such as an article about Eisenhower making a trip to the dentist, which is claimed by UFO nuts to be a cover for his trip to an alien spacecraft (did they fix his teeth?) That's not good enough, thanks. <eleland/talkedits> 18:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I see sources already listed, and the potential for more. Being a magnet for cranks is not a reason for deletion. Creation might have been a little out of process given prior AFD's, but, assuming good faith, i have no real problem with that. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~, source it impeccably, and take it to deletion review. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My experience with DRV on recreation of contentious material (e.g. Encyclopedia Dramatica) is that once the DRV allows the article to be created we then go through an AfD anyway. Since we already have a re-created article and an AfD, why not express an opinion now on whether you think it's appropriate rather than requesting greater amounts of bureaucracy? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Keep~~ Good point, DE. I was waffling as to whether the references represented sufficient outside coverage for us to be able to write an article, but on balance I would say that they do. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete Actually, the more I look at this, the less there seems to be. It looks like there is a scant modicum of coverage, but there is really nothing to it. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We haven't made contact, therefore this field of study doesn't exist or meet notability. This is more a page about a conspiracy theory then a page about an academic field. Pstanton 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Comment. I agree that this is bogus fringe speculation, and I think that shouldn't be obscured or glossed over in any article we have about it. But you haven't addressed the question of whether this is or isn't notable bogus fringe speculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I mostly agree with the delete opinions above that the term is merely a buzzword used to describe things we already have articles on (though one that is gaining wider use, it appears) and that a full article on the subject is not necessary, I believe that changing the page into a disambiguation including a single line on the current subject and a link to Black Holes and Revelations (and possibly others) is the best solution. If nothing else, the restoration of the redirect to Black Holes and Revelations is preferable to deletion. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It looks like it might be notable, and it's at least well-referenced. If it's been created recently, give it time to mature before applying the axe. Xihr 00:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think by now there's enough of a demonstration that its a matter of notable discussion--if not exactly practical application. The article needs expansion, and a clearer separation between speculative law, science fiction, and ufology. DGG (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The idea seems to have attracted mainstream attention, and while the name exopolitics is not universally used to describe this idea, it seems as good a name for it as any, and does have mainstream use so the arguments at WP:NEO don't apply. JulesH (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacking reliable sourcing as to the existence of the topic's subject matter ("political relations between humans and extraterrestrial civilizations"), the bar for establishing the notability of the study of this apparently non-existent subject-matter is raised considerably (not exactly like, but by no means completely unlike, a WP:HOAX as a topic), and I do not think that the marginal sourcing passes this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neutral article, well sourced, no good reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as well documented by reliable sources. Some detractors appear to argue the positiom that the exponents of the exopolitics field have a clearly pseudoscientific slant in their rhetoric. That and the fact that the field is being driven by individuals with a decided penchant (and savvy) for self-initiated PR events, nevertheless, does not undermine the fact that the field is being discussed in a sufficient number of reliable sources to ensure compliance with our inclusion guidelines. If it can be argued that a reliable source is being gullible for being guiled into covering a subject, that still does not present an argument congruent with the coverage not being applicable. __meco (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable, independent sources that establish notability (a mention here or there in "on the lighter side" pages just dosn't cut it). Seems to be a lot of synth and or, about something that appears to have never happened.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources are collated on the article's talk page and have yet to be incorporated into the article. I think it quite unfortunate that no ample time is given to implement this work. __meco (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the new article and AfD on the Paranormal project discussion page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable topic, even if still speculative. Deleting the article will not make it go away. (BTW I was almost kicked off of WP for AfDing Xenu. :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a matter of making it go away, the fact is it is not actually here to go away. Exopolitics is a minor fictional meme in the outer spiral crank of the ufology community. But "The retired elementary school principal spends his time lobbying reporters to blow a massive government cover-up wide open and reveal that extra-terrestrials have been visiting our planet for years" is, without doubt, one of the biggest belly laughs I have seen on a serious news site in recent times :-) Guy (Help!) 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology has over 400 WP articles. Exopolitics could probably have one. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bloomberg, the Toronto Star, and the Washington Post are all reliable sources which cover the topic. Scapler (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't cover "exopolitics", they cover (briefly) the UFO conspiracy theory of the people associated with that label. Do we now need an article on every individual variant of that conspiracy theory? See also my comment below. Sandstein 21:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! This is very notable. Powerzilla (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UFO conspiracy theory, which seems to be our umbrella article about this kind of idea. "Exopolitics" appears to be the label given to a variant of this theory by a few vocal advocates, and their advocacy has duly been reported by a few media, but it does not appear that their actual ideas are very distinct from the standard "the ETs have already made contact and the government doesn't want us to know" story as covered in the proposed target article. As for exopolitics as a putative branch of political science (as opposed to conspiracy theory), there seems to be no substantial and reliable (let alone academic) coverage for this. Sandstein 20:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not really; the term is also used by those who consider this kind of matter as a theoretical exercise without asserting any conspiracy really exists. See the second source in the article. It's an umbrella term that can be used by both those who think extraterrestrial contact has already happened, and those who consider that it might happen one day in the future. The conspiracy theorists may be dominating the media usage of the term, but that's not all this is about. JulesH (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although a mention in a UFO article might be suitable. Let's look at the sources. The Bloomberg story sounds like a good source until you realise that there is no suggestion that the word 'Expolitics' was used at the alleged after dinner meeting, and thus the source doesn't support an article trying to suggest that there is a field called Expolitics. Then we have 'Media for Freedom' which Google's Chrome didn't want to visit. What's that? It's an Exopolitics site that says "You are invited to send your article, Press Release, or news.", and the referenced article is by the site owner. It is one of two references used to back up the statement in the lead " Exopolitics has also been used by futurists and science fiction fans to explore the possibilities and considerations that would arise if political relations with alien visitors were undertaken and how the interaction would influence the handling of issues such as global warming and morality." But there is nothing in it that mentions the user of the term in that way. The other reference to this claim is an article by an Expolitics official, but again, there is nothing in the article that backs up the statement. The last sentence in this short article says "Alien contact and the politics involved have been a feature of popular culture including films such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Mars Attacks, Starship Troopers and E.T." But none of those used the term Expolitics, so what is the sentence doing there? Most fiction about alien contact mentions governments and thus politics, this doesn't give credence to the term Expolitics, which is what this article is about. The more I look at the term, the less convincing the sources are. dougweller (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I had it to do over again I would include pull quotes in the citations. For instance the Bloomberg story is mostly general coverage of UFO related discussion at Davos, but is cited because near the end of the article it says, "This April, the 57-year-old activist and 2002 independent congressional candidate from Maryland will host the First Annual Exopolitics Expo. All the Democratic presidential hopefuls have been invited to assemble in a Washington hotel ballroom to spell out their positions on UFOs. 'Voters are increasingly willing to confront candidates on the UFO issue,' Bassett says. 'There is an alien presence in our air space and the government has access to their technology.' He should know. In 1996, Bassett registered with the U.S. Congress as a lobbyist for 'extraterrestrial affairs.' Still, ET's man on Capitol Hill remains somewhat skeptical about little green men on Wall Street. 'I'm only 30 percent confident that aliens have contractual relationships with major corporations,' Bassett says."

The citation verifies the content in one sentence of the article. Other stories, such as the Toronto Star story cover exopolitics more substantively and go further in demonstrating the term's notability. The article headlines are mostly not helpful, as they are pretty off the wall. As has been mentioned there are more sources on the talk page. I haven't added the one covering exopolitics and Barack Obama's victory announcement. It discussed the belief that having lights in orb shapes is a very good sign of positive relations and acceptance of extra-terrestrial contact. However strange or ridiculous, the term and the movement have been covered substantially and meet the inclusion guidelines. I actually think an encyclopedic discussion of how the movement's members address broad and philosophic questions like "how to negotiate with an orb of light" (as one author titled their book on exopolitics) is amusing, interesting and potentially worthwhile. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Subject notability is established by coverage from reliable media, Google News search. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Oh and also, people please stop claiming that because you found documents containing "exopolitics" in a Google Search, all of a sudden WP:RS requirements are met. You've found extensive coverage in a small set of UFO buff websites, and extremely trivial coverage in reliable sources - such as an article about Eisenhower making a trip to the dentist, which is claimed by UFO nuts to be a cover for his trip to an alien spacecraft (did they fix his teeth?) That's not good enough, thanks. <eleland/talkedits> 18:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)" <eleland/talkedits> 20:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PR Newswire, Washington Post, The America's Intelligence Wire, Canada Free Press, Vermont Guardian, Cape Cod Times, etc are not "UFO buff websites". Another search in Google Books shows extensive coverage of the subject by well established publishers, including one where the topic is Christianity 1. It's not that difficult to establish the notability of the subject. Finally, please refrain from labeling a group of people as "nuts", we are not here to judge or label anyone but to decide if the topic meets our criteria for inclusion. WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe PR Newswire and The America's Intelligence Wire are press release collators that don't count as reliable sources. The others are ok, but some (Wash post) are more ok than others (small local papers). And of course, it depends a lot on how nontrivial the coverage in those sources is. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2009 (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.