Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs

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. Give this anothe rcoule of months before revisiting it if necessary Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs[edit]

This article does not appear to meet the notability guideline for fringe theories, which specifies that "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." The article does not appear to contain any such reference, nor have I been able to find one. Nor does the article appear to meet the general notability guideline. In my opinion the article should thus probably be deleted as being non-notable.Locke9k (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No external references to support current information, though this could prove a viable article if that was not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koryu Obihiro (talk • contribs) 23:56, April 5, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. This article has been mauled by nominator in a series of consecutive edits (diff.) where clearly relevant and notable text was removed asserting that it was unreferenced and not related to the subject. I have currently undertaken to reinstate most of this and encourage the use of maintenance tags such as reference requests instead of removing text if its sourcing appears inadequate. Nominator seems blind to the religious and metaphysical perspectives of this topic shown clearly by the (now removed) addendum to the introduction: "Such theories have received no support from the general scientific community." The support of the general scientific community is not the benchmark for our inclusion of topics that do not present themselves as scientific. __meco (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to be setting up a straw man. Regardless of how you wish to semantically categorize this article, by labeling it 'religion' or whatever, it still requires third party evidence of its notability. If you wish to classify it as describing a religious organization, then it still must meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which still requires third party coverage demonstrating notability. If you are trying to avoid any of the subject specific notability criterion, it still must meet the general notability requirement, which requires "reliable secondary sources". These are simply not present. Nor can I find any after a web search in an attempt to better source the article.
  As a side note, a theory can't simply opt out of scientific review. This article is describing a proposed explanation for observed phenomena; an explanation that is not accepted by the scientific mainstream. As per the arbcom decision on the topic (see wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories for a good start point for reading about this) that qualifies this as pseudoscience and a fringe theory. There is a very clear ruling on the matter that applies to this case. Finally, the material I removed in this article was rambling, not clearly related to the subject matter, had no third party references establishing notability, and appeared to exaggerate certain points of view through the promotion of non-notable facts. I don't feel that restoring it or removing it affects this AFD since the material includes no notability-establishing references. Locke9k (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a legitimate topic. I don't know what you think of the Fortean Times, but this article seems to provide a decent overview. Zagalejo^^^ 07:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the cause of this problem is the term hypothesis used in the title. That begs to have the article judged as a scientific hypothesis – which it isn't. A renaming should ward off any future nominations such as the present one. __meco (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I think perhaps I did not make sufficiently clear the grounds on which I think this article should be deleted. Essentially, there are no third party references in the article to establish notability. I dont believe that the Fortean Times (above) qualitifies as a major reliable third party publication. I don't see how a renaming would solve the problem. By any name, the article requires a solid body of reliable independent references to establish notability. Locke9k (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there are a few more mainstream sources that discuss the idea of "UFOs as demons": [1], [2] Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable theory within UFO circles (I don't believe a word of it myself, but that doesn't make it non-notable). For example, this (admittedly old) book: [3] has a chapter devoted to the subject, and I've read about in a number of other, more recent sources that I unfortunately don't immediately have to hand. Shaeffer, I'd say, reasonably qualifies as a third party source in this context. The article may, or may not, be particularly good, but I'd say it is (perhaps regrettably) notable enough for inclusion. Anaxial (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The area of study in the article is well notable as there are umpteen sources arguing said. There are shortfalls in the references provided, but this is something that is not unsalvageable.Constructive editor (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Locke9k (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while this article certainly needs additional citations, I think they can be found. I also think the Library of Congress publication already mentioned in the article provides proof of notability. LadyofShalott ^Weave 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott ^Weave 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a mess. Article needs serious cleanup: Citations need to be put into WP:CITET format and the citations to clearly notable works (e.g., Jung) need to be explicit, rather than implied. However, since AfD is not for cleanup, I must !vote keep and revisit this, if desired, in a month or two once the article has been cleaned up and references noted have been appropriately cited. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article had been significantly cleaned up at the time the AFD was initiated. Despite considerable work along those lines, I could not find any external reliable references to support the article. Since that time, Meco has systematically reverted all of the cleanup, and so that is the article you see now. Based on what was left after the prior cleanup (feel free to look at the page history, last edit by me to see what I mean) I don't think that the issue was one of cleanup but rather of notability.Locke9k (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reverted your removal of relevant text (deemed irrelevant by you). I have not removed any of the cleanup requests which have have profusely added to the article. __meco (talk) 07:16, 8 April 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.