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. Lord Roem ~ (
talk) 18:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete There are many sources describing this event/case/thing as either a hoax or A Real UFO, but none of them are outside the unreliable UFO bubble. It just doesn't seem to be notable, at least not anymore and not like, for example,
this, so deletion is consistent with
WP:N.
JoJo Anthrax (
talk) 18:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources in the article are either unreliable or primary, and I can't find anything better online. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆
transmissions∆ °
co-ords° 21:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The incident is interesting, but sadly, proper sourcing is not available.
TH1980 (
talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. Does not appear to pas
WP:GNG, coverage in very niche sources of dubious reliability - "credible UFO news and information", meh. I have serious doubts either of those sources meet
WP:RS. If anyone disagrees, do let me know and we can discuss them at
WP:RSN. That said, the incident, better searchable under the photographer name, is mentioned in some sources found in Google Scholar:
[1]. So there is a chance this could be rescued, if stuff could be verified with RS that meet
WP:SIGCOV --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete unless of course RS are found that meet GNG.
Doug Wellertalk 10:55, 16 January 2023 (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.
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. Lord Roem ~ (
talk) 18:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete There are many sources describing this event/case/thing as either a hoax or A Real UFO, but none of them are outside the unreliable UFO bubble. It just doesn't seem to be notable, at least not anymore and not like, for example,
this, so deletion is consistent with
WP:N.
JoJo Anthrax (
talk) 18:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources in the article are either unreliable or primary, and I can't find anything better online. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆
transmissions∆ °
co-ords° 21:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The incident is interesting, but sadly, proper sourcing is not available.
TH1980 (
talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. Does not appear to pas
WP:GNG, coverage in very niche sources of dubious reliability - "credible UFO news and information", meh. I have serious doubts either of those sources meet
WP:RS. If anyone disagrees, do let me know and we can discuss them at
WP:RSN. That said, the incident, better searchable under the photographer name, is mentioned in some sources found in Google Scholar:
[1]. So there is a chance this could be rescued, if stuff could be verified with RS that meet
WP:SIGCOV --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete unless of course RS are found that meet GNG.
Doug Wellertalk 10:55, 16 January 2023 (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.