Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witness accounts of the Roswell 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 Transwiki to Wikiquote. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident[edit]

Primary source accounts and quotations of witnesses. Essentially, UFO-cruft. Certainly not encyclopedic. Consider trans-wiki to wikiquotes or wikisource but it certainly doesn't belong as an encyclopedia article. I mean, really. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource, if possible. Seems like too much detail to belong here. Ben Standeven (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- The witness accounts of the Roswell incident are an intricate part of the whole UFO phenomenon. A search in Google Scholar and Google Books verifies the notability of the witness accounts. Maybe "UFO-cruft" ~~but part of the American culture.~~ Change to delete. --Jmundo (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No justification for the deletion stemming from any WP policy. Ungtss (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's a repository of people making unanswered claims. An encyclopedia article would be "Roswell UFO incident" with a section on claims, or perhaps a citation saying "there are X many claims". Not this. This is just an assault of primary sources (in typical conspiracy theory fashion). Also, where are the lists of people who didn't see anything? I could be compelled to say keep if someone made a convincing argument that this article could and would be turned into a NPOV, concise and verifiable summary of the reports and discussion of their importance to the mythology as a whole. We don't need another page pretending the LGM are real. Protonk (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki although the Roswell status as the most well-known case in ufology makes these statements notable, this page doesn't really work as an encyclopedia article. WikiQuote would be more appropriate really. Oh my god I just agreed with Science Apologist... Totnesmartin (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote. The Roswell UFO incident is arguably what set the whole UFO craze and associated conspiracy theories in motion. The witness accounts are an intricate part of that, but since they're entire first-hand not really suitable for Wikipedia. Wikiquote (or second choice wikisource) are a better place (don't forget to link in the main article) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was one of the main contributors to the page, and felt it was needed. But as time went on, I realized that this is no longer a useful page. That's because most if not all claims on this page are open to dispute. Even by pro-Roswell researchers. And while the numbers of witnesses found here may seem impressive, the number of first-hand witnesses is quite small. On the main Roswell page (which needs to be cut down, I agree), most of the broad themes mentioned here are spelled out. I'm not sure we really need to know a raft of intricate details about all these witnesses. And we certainly don't need a page which has something like 70 accounts. Many of which (such as the alien ones) are contradictory and can't be referring to the same incident. Canada Jack (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & delete, this unencyclopedic quotefarm per WP:NOT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & delete KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki relevant content to WikiQuote. Per WP:NOT:

Wikipedia articles are not:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)

--siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:22, 26 December 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.