Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The two last "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing problems that are raised in the nomination, and are discounted. Sandstein 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A decades old hoax that appears not to have garnered much if any independent notice. Notability is not temporary, of course, but I cannot find any evidence that it had any when it was originated either. Even within the ufology community, this appears to be a minor claim. At the most, we might should have a passing mention at UFO conspiracy theory. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC) - Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seven references, including a book, already establishes the idea of the group as notable, hoax or not. Even urban legends can be notable. However article is presenting the UFO theory as fact and it needs to qualify a lot of those statements and include criticism of the theory. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That was my first impulse, certainly, but sources 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 5 are self-published. The NYT source is irrelevant (and probably WP:SYNTH. This leaves us with one book, plus a couple passing mentions in non-WP:RS that I found before bringing it here. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A few of the sources are self-published, but theyre only used for minor details; the famous Above Top Secret book is really the important one. The NYT quote is not a "synth", but a "coatrack"; that whole paragraph belongs in the biography of MacArthur, and the preceding paragraph should leave it as "General Douglas MacArthur, who had mentioned the possibility of conflict with extraterrestrials", with an anchor link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems to be notable, if mysterious. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fairly scant information here. The only substantive coverage (and there is not a lot of it) the IPU received seems to come from the UFO conspiracy theories circles (I would place Timothy Good's book in that category). Nsk92 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A number of other Wikipedia articles link to it. Explaining what IPU is in one place seems a good idea. Janm67 (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 8 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.