Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Princeton aerial object incident

Add links
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 keep per WP:SNOW TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Princeton aerial object incident[edit]

USS Princeton aerial object incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article has unsubstantiated claims about a ufo incident in 2004 which is in the process of being debunked at metabunk.org (originally called the uss nimitz 2004 incident) https://www.metabunk.org/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage.t9190/ in short it is similar to a chilean case where "serious" authorities were 110% sure of an extraterrestrial explanation, it turned out to be an earthly airliner far away, ascending and leaving the airport this article here is part of a media campaign from Delonge ufo site https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ with Luis Elizondo head of the former ufo investigation at the Pentagon, probably intended to secure more funds for his project wikipedia should not post incidents which has no extraordinary values and is part of standard military encounters or faulty radar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Requin8 (talk • contribs) 22:07 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Well the metabunk attempt to discredit this story is very weak. The major criticism is that a news source once pictured a "cigar-shaped UFO" photo in an unrelated story about this USS Nimitz/Princeton incident. So, ignoring that and the ad hominems. This article is noteworthy: it has significant coverage from reliable sources who lack any interest in the subject (The NYT reporter is their middle east correspondent) and refused to work from the source material of the To The Stars Academy, who weren't mentioned in the NYT article. There are multiple interviews with gov't officials in a variety of levels confirming the source material is authentic, unexplained, and can be sourced to a Pentagon operation known as AATIP. Luis Elizondo is in some articles, and is associated with To The Stars, but Mr. Bigelow, working for Pentagon and NASA, is unaffiliated with To The Stars and confirms Elizondo's information and expands on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 22:45 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep, as creator I started the article as I was impressed with the veracity of the claims as they were published in the NYT and Politico and BBC, three of the strongest sources any current affairs article could possess. Any subsequent exploration of the story does not affect the original strength of the reporting. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the NYT reporter lacks any interest in the subject is spurious. LESLIE KEAN has been reporting on UFOs since the 90s, and wrote a book on it (#1 best seller in UFO category on Amazon). I just wanted to clarify the false claim the TheThomas. -70.174.93.74 (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep This desperately needs better sources. While we have many news articles to reference as sources for this page I am rapidly becoming frustrated trying to locate the sources that the news articles have used. If this information does come from the government, is the result of a FOIA request, then there is a more primary source out there that needs to be linked to and referenced directly by wikipedia. Interviews with pilots by news agencies are first hand information, the source of the videos, must be governmental, and needs to be clearly identified and linked here. Without that degree of credibility this article is mere hearsay and not worthy of article status other than as a footnote on an 'unsubstantiated UFO sightings' page.

keep - It's news? The BBC had a news article about this incident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RlbqOl_4NA (Narkstraws (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I see nothing wrong with an article about the news reports because they are real and may be documented, however, care must be taken to avoid the impression of supporting a belief in the details asserted by the subjects of our article. That impression may be created easily with adoption of terms used by subjects and including them in our discussion of the topic. That may be avoided by careful editing. Mirages and such may be seen by multiple people because they are phenomena that occur. The effects are supported by physics and scientific research, however, unsubstantiated details, interpretations, and projections about them should be avoided in our articles. Although a mirage cannot be detected with radar, it is a phenomenon that occurs. Interpreting it as a spaceship rather than an oasis should be left to the subjects experiencing it, not related as a fact to our readers. I would support merging this into the article on the program, if it is included appropriately in an expansion of that article. That might put it into better perspective. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. More sources, in addition to the already more than adequate amount and quality of sources in the article: [1], [2] AdA&D 14:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this nomination was malformed so I have listed it correctly now and included it on today's AFD list rather than yesterday's. SmartSE (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Seems notable [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets the notability threshold. A merge to AATIP could be considered, but that's beyond the scope of this AfD. Rentier (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But be sure to keep a neutral tone, and avoid drawing conclusions. This is a reported incident, and the article should focus on what was reported. A reference to any actual DOD documents would significantly boost the credibility. Hadron137 (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs a lot of work to be an actual encyclopedic article but so do most articles littered with news reports. Deletion is not cleanup and only a little more time will tell if this has any lasting significance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as distasteful as it is that news organisations stoop this low for clicks, it has plenty of sources for notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We don't judge the news (except when they're the Daily Mail) on what they report, as long as they report it, and this incident has more than enough legs to pass WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable, not to mention extremely interesting! GWA88 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - FWIW - seems worthy imo - agree with much already noted above - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/USS_Princeton_aerial_object_incident&oldid=1071739592"