- 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 delete per WP:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Space Penguins of Tuscumbia
- Space Penguins of Tuscumbia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources for this obscure 1960s UFO encounter (which was initially speedied as a hoax), just a WP:SPS monster blog from a couple of years ago and a brief entry in a paranormal database. McGeddon ( talk) 18:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources included are highly unreliable, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Obscure UFO encounter claims don't merit a page. mikeman67 ( talk) 20:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Dont Delete. Mikeman67@: You dont seem to know the difference between a reliable and unreliable source. You have to CHECK the source before evaluating it´s reliability. So i would say your voice doesnt count here -- SpongebobLawyerPants ( talk) 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)}}
DONT DELETE.Hello, there are no reasons to delete this article. I found at least 2 reliable sources which dont refer to each other, so they are 2 different sources. The americanmonsters.com author Rob Morphy seems to be an expert in UFO incidents and cryptids. His articles are neutral and their main purpose is to inform the readers, not to entertain them. The case is even mentioned by a highly reliable museum site proving that the "Space Penguins" arent just an invention of Rob Morphy and it is also mentioned in the second source (which is a database). Actually Morphy´s publication is based on newspaper reports. I will try to find some more sources, but even the 3 ones i have already found justify the existence of this article. -- SpongebobLawyerPants ( talk) 18:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
DONT DELETE.Another site mentioning the case: http://ufoupdateslist.com/1997/may/m02-004.shtml -- SpongebobLawyerPants ( talk) 22:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
DONT DELETE.Finally ! Here is a very good source. Its taken from a journal. Read it and you will understand that a deletion doesnt make any sense. Look at page 18 (or 19), you will see Edwards´ sketch and the description of the incident ! http://www.theblackvault.com/encyclopedia/documents/MUFON/Journals/2005/November_2005.pdf -- SpongebobLawyerPants ( talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources found for this obscure UFO story. Americanmonsters.com, ufoupdateslist.com, theblackvault.com are fringe sites and don't meet our criteria for reliable sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I searched, I really did. However the thing is that there just isn't any coverage in places that Wikipedia could consider to be reliable. There's a distinct lack of coverage even in the fringe sites and while it's not like we can use those as a RS anyway, it's kind of telling that even the fringe sites and outlets don't really seem to find any of this particularly noteworthy. Other than a very small handful of people, nobody is talking about this anywhere. I can't even find enough to where I'd suggest even merging a one line sentence into the main page for the village. Even Weird U.S., which tends to cover stuff like this, has sort of just shrugged its shoulders and moved on to cover other things. This is about as non-notable of an alien incident as you can get. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete it doesn't even come close to meeting WP:RS since MUFON is a WP:FRINGE publication. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't find coverage in sources that Wikipedia would deem reliable, so there's no way it meets Wikipedia's standard for a subject having a stand-alone article. Its not "bias", it just flat out doesn't meet the requirements. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
| Hatting troll and responses. Nothing to see here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Super strong delete sourcing inadequate. Looks like a WP:HOAX. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Just another run-of-the-mill UFO story, entirely lacking coverage in the sort of mainstream sources which would make it notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. And SpongebobLawyerPants should note that repeating the same statement multiple times achieves nothing whatsoever. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Easiest decision I've made all week. Get rid of the poorly sourced nonsense. - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 17:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as being blatantly non-notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Articles about cryptids such as Nessie, the yeti and bigfoot are about subjects that are dubious in many ways, but which have achieved wide coverage. These critters (that picture looks more like a meerkat than a penguin to me) have not achieved wide coverage. Especially not in reliable independent sources WP:RS. The farmer may well have seen something. Unfortunately, there is only his word for it (and a researcher seeing a hole in the ground). Even this is not reported (so far as we are aware) in reliable sources. This is an encyclopaedia. Subjects must be reliably referenced. I don't think this can be referenced in any sort of source as only one person is reported to have seen the incident, and there is no evidence to support this - except the hole, and holes on farms are not unknown. Peridon ( talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whether or not this is a hoax, it's the notability that we must decide on. The Cottingley fairies turned out to be a hoax - but they are notable. Peridon ( talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Sourced to fringe science websites, nothing reputable or notable. Tarc ( talk) 20:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of reliable sources. And even if it could be sourced it's not exactly Whitley Strieber, is it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not because it's fringe, of course it is, but because none of the sources seem to assert any sort of significance or notability. (Scientific, pop-culture, media coverage, or anything.) An article in the MUFON newsletter, on its own, doesn't really establish notability. APL ( talk) 23:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete per WP:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Space Penguins of Tuscumbia
- Space Penguins of Tuscumbia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources for this obscure 1960s UFO encounter (which was initially speedied as a hoax), just a WP:SPS monster blog from a couple of years ago and a brief entry in a paranormal database. McGeddon ( talk) 18:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources included are highly unreliable, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Obscure UFO encounter claims don't merit a page. mikeman67 ( talk) 20:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Dont Delete. Mikeman67@: You dont seem to know the difference between a reliable and unreliable source. You have to CHECK the source before evaluating it´s reliability. So i would say your voice doesnt count here -- SpongebobLawyerPants ( talk) 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)}}
DONT DELETE.Hello, there are no reasons to delete this article. I found at least 2 reliable sources which dont refer to each other, so they are 2 different sources. The americanmonsters.com author Rob Morphy seems to be an expert in UFO incidents and cryptids. His articles are neutral and their main purpose is to inform the readers, not to entertain them. The case is even mentioned by a highly reliable museum site proving that the "Space Penguins" arent just an invention of Rob Morphy and it is also mentioned in the second source (which is a database). Actually Morphy´s publication is based on newspaper reports. I will try to find some more sources, but even the 3 ones i have already found justify the existence of this article. -- SpongebobLawyerPants ( talk) 18:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
DONT DELETE.Another site mentioning the case: http://ufoupdateslist.com/1997/may/m02-004.shtml -- SpongebobLawyerPants ( talk) 22:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
DONT DELETE.Finally ! Here is a very good source. Its taken from a journal. Read it and you will understand that a deletion doesnt make any sense. Look at page 18 (or 19), you will see Edwards´ sketch and the description of the incident ! http://www.theblackvault.com/encyclopedia/documents/MUFON/Journals/2005/November_2005.pdf -- SpongebobLawyerPants ( talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources found for this obscure UFO story. Americanmonsters.com, ufoupdateslist.com, theblackvault.com are fringe sites and don't meet our criteria for reliable sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I searched, I really did. However the thing is that there just isn't any coverage in places that Wikipedia could consider to be reliable. There's a distinct lack of coverage even in the fringe sites and while it's not like we can use those as a RS anyway, it's kind of telling that even the fringe sites and outlets don't really seem to find any of this particularly noteworthy. Other than a very small handful of people, nobody is talking about this anywhere. I can't even find enough to where I'd suggest even merging a one line sentence into the main page for the village. Even Weird U.S., which tends to cover stuff like this, has sort of just shrugged its shoulders and moved on to cover other things. This is about as non-notable of an alien incident as you can get. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete it doesn't even come close to meeting WP:RS since MUFON is a WP:FRINGE publication. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't find coverage in sources that Wikipedia would deem reliable, so there's no way it meets Wikipedia's standard for a subject having a stand-alone article. Its not "bias", it just flat out doesn't meet the requirements. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
| Hatting troll and responses. Nothing to see here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Super strong delete sourcing inadequate. Looks like a WP:HOAX. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Just another run-of-the-mill UFO story, entirely lacking coverage in the sort of mainstream sources which would make it notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. And SpongebobLawyerPants should note that repeating the same statement multiple times achieves nothing whatsoever. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Easiest decision I've made all week. Get rid of the poorly sourced nonsense. - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 17:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as being blatantly non-notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Articles about cryptids such as Nessie, the yeti and bigfoot are about subjects that are dubious in many ways, but which have achieved wide coverage. These critters (that picture looks more like a meerkat than a penguin to me) have not achieved wide coverage. Especially not in reliable independent sources WP:RS. The farmer may well have seen something. Unfortunately, there is only his word for it (and a researcher seeing a hole in the ground). Even this is not reported (so far as we are aware) in reliable sources. This is an encyclopaedia. Subjects must be reliably referenced. I don't think this can be referenced in any sort of source as only one person is reported to have seen the incident, and there is no evidence to support this - except the hole, and holes on farms are not unknown. Peridon ( talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whether or not this is a hoax, it's the notability that we must decide on. The Cottingley fairies turned out to be a hoax - but they are notable. Peridon ( talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Sourced to fringe science websites, nothing reputable or notable. Tarc ( talk) 20:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of reliable sources. And even if it could be sourced it's not exactly Whitley Strieber, is it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not because it's fringe, of course it is, but because none of the sources seem to assert any sort of significance or notability. (Scientific, pop-culture, media coverage, or anything.) An article in the MUFON newsletter, on its own, doesn't really establish notability. APL ( talk) 23:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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.