Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identified flying object

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 speedy close. because of GFDL concerns over potentially merged material if this was deleted. Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identified flying object[edit]

No reason for such a short uninformative article to be on Wikipedia. It is just there to be a contrast to UFO, but identified flying objects are everywhere that everyone can recognize, without Wikipedia telling him what it is (planes, birds). Are we gonna have an article titled "known plants"? Wandering Courier (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a lot that could be written about common explanations for UFOs - probably enough to justify a spinout article from Unidentified flying object, which is a huge topic. However, I agree that this current article is a bit silly. It might be best to just convert this into a redirect to Unidentified flying object. (The exact phrase "Identified flying object" is commonly seen in writings about UFOs, [1] so it's possible someone would use it as a search term.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is currently a dispute about the status of this article and whether or not the content should be merged with Unidentified Flying Object. In the previous revisions it has been a much longer article. We should probably wait for this dispute to be resolved before doing anything. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should probably add that by "previous revisions" I mean very recent previous revisions, as in 2 hours before the deletion proposal was made. Probably the only reason there was a lull in the edit war was because of the 3RR. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal for speedy close. Look at the history, the article was stubbed after an edit war over merging with UFO and most of the old content is in UFO right now. Deletion would be a big GFDL violation plus either the nominator has an agenda of some kind or missed the history of the article today. As I suggested on the talk page, this content is probably best done as a fork of UFO describing investigations into UFO sightings in more detail than there is room for in the main article, but it needs a better title and a new lead paragraph. Not only is deletion the wrong course, but the nomination at this time is a mistake. Thatcher 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not an expert in ufology nor do I investigate UFOs. What are the cause of the UFOs? I do not know and I am not in a position to find out. What is relevant, however, is that this article, for a reason or another, edit warring or inherent deficiency, is unable to develop into a useful guide. There is an article for UFO because of the "U", unidentified. We have articles on airplanes, spacecrafts, and so forth, and an independent article on "known" flying objects is unnecessary. If you say I have an agenda, I have a simple agenda: to make Wikipedia simple and and to reduce waste. Wandering Courier (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but since the content that used to be in this article was merged elsewhere, we can't delete this article because of the GFDL. (See the instructions at WP:MERGE.) We must at least convert it into a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 05:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if any of the content was merged away, then this is a speedy close 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more than a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 27 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.