Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varginha UFO incident

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. Tone 21:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Varginha UFO incident

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. No enduring historical significance. Largely obscure, except for WP:FRINGE sources like Roger Leir, Kevin Randle, ufo magazines, Brazilian tabloids, etc. A single WP:SENSATIONAL story published in the Wall Street Journal 25 years ago is not sufficient criteria for a stand alone article. I would say it might deserve mention at List of reported UFO sightings however the event isn't a sighting of a UFO, it's a confusing mishmash of secondhand claims of people saying they saw aliens, and a supposed conspiracy/coverup. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By coincidence over the past week I've been watching video reports, clips from media reports on this case and it is treated as a very famous case in the Spanish-speaking world. The Portuguese article is long and has a lot of references. I only speak English, however, so I can't vet the content. In my view at this time it would be better to just add an Expert needed template message {{expert needed}} at the top of the article and a corresponding section on the talk page describing what the deficiency is that needs improving before taking the drastic step of deletion. 5Q5|^✉ 12:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In Brazil, the case is known as the "ET de Varginha", the case is a constant subject of stories on TV and on channels about ufulogy. The case is one of the most recognized in the world. So, I vote to keep this page on wikipedia. Raonyphillips (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I was astonished to find out this article had been AfD'ed. This incident could probably be the most notorious UFO/alien-related event outside of the U.S and by far the most relevant in Brazil. Easy for me to say it as a Brazilian, of course, but the article kinda demonstrates that. It does have problems, of course, but that's what tags are for. Also, half the sources come from some of Brazil's largest news organizations (Globo, ISTOÉ), they're not just some "tabloids". The PT version has additional good sources, and a Google search would return even more of them, but I honestly won't even bother adding them unless more people start supporting the deletion, which seems unlikely. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-reported event in new age magazines as it is an encounter outside the scope of Area 51 and the US military. Hence, it has strong notability for this reason alone. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The coverage in reliable sources is overwhelming. Celestina007 (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was impressed by the comments above that the page is "well-reported" and "[t]he coverage in reliable sources is overwhelming." I am going to assume good faith here, and further assume that those comments might actually be true. Those comments do not, however, apply to this article in its current state. Of the 15 in-line citations, I found: two are likely reliable sources (citations 2 and 3); seven either can not be evaluated by me, have no content, or link to pages having nothing to do with the topic (citations 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15); six, or 40% of the total, are unquestionably unreliable, being written and sometimes published by established pro-fringe, pseudoscience pushers (citations 4, 7, 9. 11, 13, 14). I do not understand Portuguese, and am thus unable to attempt rectification, but as it currently stands the elements of WP:FRINGE and WP:FRIND, to name only two, are what I consider to be overwhelming. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete bollocks, but it is notable bollocks, precisely the sort of bollocks that should be covered by Wikipedia. References 1,5,6, and 8 are from large Brazilian media companies, they are reliable sources (they do have a problem with rightwing bias, but that's not at stake here). Reference 11 is just an article from an established newspaper saying that a statue of the ET has been adorned with a mask to campaign against corona, I don't see what could be possibly wrong with that. References 13 and 14 are from an UFO maganize, but they are merely noting that a documentary has been produced about the affair, I think that's fair game. Reference 12 is about this same documentary, and 15 about some Syfy tv show. This leaves us with references 4,7,9 as fringe sources, and 10 as inaccessible. All in all, it's a clear Keep. Tercer (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your word for it that citations 1, 5, 6 and 8 are reliable. That makes a total of six reliable sources out of fifteen. As for citations 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, per WP:FRIND (and actually the entire WP:FRINGE guideline) they are inappropriate and unreliable because they are written by confirmed, no-doubt-about-it, pro-fringe POV-pushers (i.e., Kevin Randle, Roger Leir, Bret Lueder, "Redação Vigília", Mel Polidori), and citation 14 is an out-and-out UFO woo website. When the dead/content-free links are included (citations 12 and 15)...well, all in all, it's a clear Delete. I get it that some bollocks are notable - for example the Paul is dead insanity - and I am certainly willing to believe that this "event" should/could/might be worthy of inclusion on en-Wiki, but until this article is populated by more independent, reliable sources, it simply does not rise to encyclopedic status. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm coming around to see that apparently this is a big deal in Brazil. The Brazilian coverage is mostly of the tongue-in-cheek variety. That's too bad, because we can't build a neutral article on sources that don't bother with serious analysis or critique and just repeat claims taken at face value. Google Translate may be useful to weed out such sensational credulous sources from the article. Also the direct citations to fringe ufology books must go. One example of the moderately less sensational Brazilian coverage is [1]. Note that it explicitly concludes that the claims are debunked and this is all a myth. Not sure why our article lead doesn't reflect this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Victor Lopes and Tercer. Notable myths are still notable, Wikipedia has a role here that will not be well-served by deletion. Feoffer (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'm from Brazil and can vouch for everything Victor Lopes has said. The "incident" is still culturally and historically significant within Brazil and Brazilian culture, and the historical coverage has always been at the level of mainstream media, not just "tabloids". The article would exist to report the repercussions of the event, whatever it was, and is as notable to Brazilian culture just as something like Roswell UFO incident or Rendlesham Forest incident, and arguably among the most famous such "incidents" in Brazil (together with Operação Prato, which also rightfully gets its own article). However, it is true that the current article has issues with citations, but this does not warrant its deletion. — LucasVB | Talk 21:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The case was heavily covered by Brazilian media and is constantly revisited. The article needs to be rewriten with better sources, but deletion is unnecessary. 2804:431:C7C0:66B:4C9:3F20:192D:F07D (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The military was deployed. This was an incident. It happened. A young Military Intelligence Officer died. It doesn't matter if it was a gas cloud or an alien, a man died and that should be enough not to dismiss it. Here is the Brazilian equivalent of a FOIA by Congress on details of the autopsy of Military Intelligence Officer Marco Eli Chereze. Link: https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra;jsessionid=0BFCE4A431F5E8B37BE625A1441B3FA9.proposicoesWebExterno2?codteor=1656251&filename=RIC+3515/2018 (Yes it's in Portuguese, use google translator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruda Luna (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The military was not deployed. jps (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2020 (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.