- 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. There is no reasonable possibility of further time for discussion leading to a consensus for deletion at this point.
BD2412
T 04:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
UFO-Memorial Ängelholm
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- UFO-Memorial Ängelholm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about obscure statue depends on citations to mentions in unreliable WP:FRINGE sources: a selfpub Lulu book, two UFO websites, and a book by fringe author David Hatcher Childress. It may deserve a line or two at the Ängelholm article, based on a photo listing in a cultural heritage book: [1]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Sweden. Shellwood ( talk) 19:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to the Angleholm article, it's a thing, but not really notable alone. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. OK article, and nominator doesn't much explain why it wouldn't be. The entity exists and at the specified location, and nominator hasn't claimed that that that isn't so. We have lots of articles on individual sculptures and markers, I've written a couple-few myself. Yeah they're obscure, but the're just going to be more obscure if we delete the articles on them, and how does that help our remit of taking info out of the darkness of obscurity and organizing and presenting here in order to help make the internet not suck as much. Yes the sources are obscure, but they're reliable for our purposes here; if we were using them support us saying that the memorialized event actually occurred, they would not be reliable, but we're not saying that, we're just explaining why such an entity was made. For much the same reason, fringeness doesn't much matter. And obscure yes, but certainly giving significant coverage, I mean there's an entire book about the subject, for starters (obscure, granted; but very in-depth, and reliable for our purposes of demonstrating why the entity exists).
- It's on OK article, four short paragraphs, nice photo, refs, fits in
Category:UFO culture for people looking thru that. Why destroy it. Daily page views is 25, I don't know why its that high, but that's a lot for an article like this. Participants here should consider the statement "Those 25 readers a day will be better served when they search on the term if they get a 404, or at any rate a redirect to a couple sentences, rather than this article, because _______". What goes in the blank? Tell me. If its compelling I'll change my mind. Can you do that? I doubt the article quality is much below our average. Article is marginal to even be brought to AfD. Keep.
Herostratus (
talk) 00:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
Herostratus "The entity exists" - but you know existence is not sufficient threshold to be in Wikipedia. What makes this monument
notable? As for "there's an entire book about the subject" - which book, and is it about this monument, or about the UFO incident? I have an inkling that the UFO incident may be notable, and the monument could be mentioned in such an article, but I am not seeing what makes the monument notable and deserving a stand-alone article at present. I'll note that the monument is mentioned, without sources, in
Ängelholm, so yes, a merge seems an option too (and gets my vote for now as a
WP:ATD).
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the article, it's just that you feel it's too obscure to bother writing about. But somebody has bothered. I get that you wouldn't and would consider it a waste of your time, but we can't control other people and what's done is done. So... " "Those 25 readers a day will be better served when they search on the term if they get a 404, or at any rate a redirect to a couple sentences, rather than this article, because _______". Fill in the blank with something compelling and I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I won't. Herostratus ( talk) 11:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
Herostratus "The entity exists" - but you know existence is not sufficient threshold to be in Wikipedia. What makes this monument
notable? As for "there's an entire book about the subject" - which book, and is it about this monument, or about the UFO incident? I have an inkling that the UFO incident may be notable, and the monument could be mentioned in such an article, but I am not seeing what makes the monument notable and deserving a stand-alone article at present. I'll note that the monument is mentioned, without sources, in
Ängelholm, so yes, a merge seems an option too (and gets my vote for now as a
WP:ATD).
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete no need to merge, there is already enough coverage of this non-notable thing in the proposed target. - Roxy the dog 08:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, and preferably expand the article to also cover the supposed UFO landing it's meant to memorate. sv:Clas Svahn, a respected journalist, co-wrote an entire book about the UFO incident (Mötet i gläntan), including the monument, published in 1995 (new and expanded edition in 2015). There's this longish article in Sydsvenskan, or this one in Helsingborgs Dagblad, there have been guided tours at the monument, we have pretty long articles on restoration and upkeep of the monument, and so on. I agree with the sentiment above that the UFO sighting and the monument should be treated in one article, but based on the available sources, I'd argue the article on the monument in itself is worth keeping for the time being, due to sustained interest over time. / Julle ( talk) 03:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep but replace the 2008 photo in the article with these two from 2021, including a drone shot: c:File:UFO-monumentet_i_Ängelholm_1.jpg and c:File:UFO-monumentet_i_Ängelholm_2.jpg. Versions of the article in other languages appear to have more information to help expand. 5Q5| ✉ 12:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)- Keep - It's a legitimate statue and local landmark with backing from the municipality as a tourist attraction. Yes it's obscure and in Sweden, but it is a genuinely interesting article and one I imagine potential visitors to the area would read. AtFirstLight ( talk) 08:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review after article expansion. A reminder this AFD isn't about a UFO encounter but about a memorial sculpture and whether or not it is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)- Well actually it's about the article. And the article is not in a straitjacket. The article is about, or at least talks about, both event and memorial. Has to. So,the part on the actual (supposed) event could be expanded (or not). The article could be renamed to "UFO incident at Ängelholm" and the part about the memorial put in a separate section (or not). Or whatever. But, just to point out, none of these improvements can happen if the article is, I don't know, erased. Right? Herostratus ( talk) 20:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I am not seeing any reliable sources that mention this topic (reference 1 and 5 are totally unreliable and should be removed).
Psychologist Guy (
talk) 16:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: I replaced the first source after seeing this comment. Reference 5 is being used a primary source; I didn't look for a replacement because it just covers a single sentence that I'm not sure belongs in the article. The best sources in the article appear to references 8 and 9, added by Julle. These are 2 newspaper articles from a major Swedish newspaper that specifically talk about the monument, its condition, its maintenance, and the area's attitude towards it. Sadly they are both paywalled and Swedish language. Expanding that last sentence into a paragraph or two would, I think, push this easily towards keep. The Roswell incident is now largely considered to have been mundane, but the alien autopsy museum out there is still notable. Rjjiii ( talk) 17:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Psychologist Guy: I'd argue that Sydsvenskan and Helsingborgs Dagblad are reliable? Not from the UFO angle but as the dominating newspapers in southern Sweden, which is the relevant region here. And Dick Harrison is a respected historian, here writing in Svenska Dagbladet, one of the most respected newspapers in Sweden. / Julle ( talk) 17:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)- Keep. The memorial is "listed as a heritage site by the Swedish National Heritage Board site number RAÄ Strövelstrop 47:1" Anders Högberg, Cornelius Holtorf, Cultural Heritage and the Future. (2020). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis. CT55555( talk) 02:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. When put up for deletion these were the sources:
- Crone, Billy (23 March 2018). UFO's: The Great Last Days Deception. ISBN 9781948766012.
- "Contactee Wayne Aho and the October 1965 Swedish "sky train"" (PDF). (187 KiB), Clas Svahn, Archives for UFO Research Foundation Newsletter, Issue 48, Page 2.
- Childress, David Hatcher (1991). Vimana Aircraft of Ancient India & Atlantis. ISBN 9780932813121.
- "FAQ - Svar på vanliga frågor om UFO och UFO-Sverige". <www.ufo.se> (in Swedish). UFO-Sweden. Archived from the original on 2008-04-25. Retrieved 2008-05-06. "Några övertygande bevis för att händelsen gått till som Gösta Carlsson beskrev den finns inte"
- These are the current sources:
- Carlsson, Bo; Backman, Jyri; Stark, Tobias (June 2022). "The hegemonic impact of the NHL and the 'Americanization' of Swedish ice hockey and resistance: Rögle BK as 'hockey culture'". Sport in Society. 25 (6): 1125–1141. ISSN 1743-0437. Retrieved 2023-01-29. "Gösta Carlsson, in addition to his influence and legacy for Rögle BK, is locally well-known for his self-proclaimed UFO experiences, allegedly having been in close contact with aliens."
- "Världens första monument över "flygande tefat"". Arbetet. 29 September 1972.
- Dick Harrison (28 April 2017). "UFO i Skåne?". Svenska Dagbladet.
- RAÄ-nummer Strövelstorp 47:1
- "FAQ - Svar på vanliga frågor om UFO och UFO-Sverige". <www.ufo.se> (in Swedish). UFO-Sweden. Archived from the original on 2008-04-25. Retrieved 2008-05-06. "Några övertygande bevis för att händelsen gått till som Gösta Carlsson beskrev den finns inte"
- Oscarsson, Mattias (18 December 2022). "Finns sanningen om utomjordingarna i ett arkiv i Norrköping?". Sydsvenskan (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023.
- Anders Högberg, Cornelius Holtorf, Cultural Heritage and the Future. (2020). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis
- Gunnarsson, Evelina (20 July 2015). "Nu röjs det kring ufot". Helsingborgs Dagblad (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023.
- Niklasson, Anette (11 July 2022). "Guidade turer vid ufo-monumentet". Helsingborgs Dagblad (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023
- Red sources were removed, green sources were added, and the one source in black remains. Perhaps we should ping earlier commenters or the Fringe board to get updates on the current state? Additionally is there a good way/place to reach out to Swedish/English editors? Rjjiii ( talk) 20:19, 11 February 2023 (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 keep. There is no reasonable possibility of further time for discussion leading to a consensus for deletion at this point.
BD2412
T 04:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
UFO-Memorial Ängelholm
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- UFO-Memorial Ängelholm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about obscure statue depends on citations to mentions in unreliable WP:FRINGE sources: a selfpub Lulu book, two UFO websites, and a book by fringe author David Hatcher Childress. It may deserve a line or two at the Ängelholm article, based on a photo listing in a cultural heritage book: [1]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Sweden. Shellwood ( talk) 19:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to the Angleholm article, it's a thing, but not really notable alone. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. OK article, and nominator doesn't much explain why it wouldn't be. The entity exists and at the specified location, and nominator hasn't claimed that that that isn't so. We have lots of articles on individual sculptures and markers, I've written a couple-few myself. Yeah they're obscure, but the're just going to be more obscure if we delete the articles on them, and how does that help our remit of taking info out of the darkness of obscurity and organizing and presenting here in order to help make the internet not suck as much. Yes the sources are obscure, but they're reliable for our purposes here; if we were using them support us saying that the memorialized event actually occurred, they would not be reliable, but we're not saying that, we're just explaining why such an entity was made. For much the same reason, fringeness doesn't much matter. And obscure yes, but certainly giving significant coverage, I mean there's an entire book about the subject, for starters (obscure, granted; but very in-depth, and reliable for our purposes of demonstrating why the entity exists).
- It's on OK article, four short paragraphs, nice photo, refs, fits in
Category:UFO culture for people looking thru that. Why destroy it. Daily page views is 25, I don't know why its that high, but that's a lot for an article like this. Participants here should consider the statement "Those 25 readers a day will be better served when they search on the term if they get a 404, or at any rate a redirect to a couple sentences, rather than this article, because _______". What goes in the blank? Tell me. If its compelling I'll change my mind. Can you do that? I doubt the article quality is much below our average. Article is marginal to even be brought to AfD. Keep.
Herostratus (
talk) 00:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
Herostratus "The entity exists" - but you know existence is not sufficient threshold to be in Wikipedia. What makes this monument
notable? As for "there's an entire book about the subject" - which book, and is it about this monument, or about the UFO incident? I have an inkling that the UFO incident may be notable, and the monument could be mentioned in such an article, but I am not seeing what makes the monument notable and deserving a stand-alone article at present. I'll note that the monument is mentioned, without sources, in
Ängelholm, so yes, a merge seems an option too (and gets my vote for now as a
WP:ATD).
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the article, it's just that you feel it's too obscure to bother writing about. But somebody has bothered. I get that you wouldn't and would consider it a waste of your time, but we can't control other people and what's done is done. So... " "Those 25 readers a day will be better served when they search on the term if they get a 404, or at any rate a redirect to a couple sentences, rather than this article, because _______". Fill in the blank with something compelling and I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I won't. Herostratus ( talk) 11:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
Herostratus "The entity exists" - but you know existence is not sufficient threshold to be in Wikipedia. What makes this monument
notable? As for "there's an entire book about the subject" - which book, and is it about this monument, or about the UFO incident? I have an inkling that the UFO incident may be notable, and the monument could be mentioned in such an article, but I am not seeing what makes the monument notable and deserving a stand-alone article at present. I'll note that the monument is mentioned, without sources, in
Ängelholm, so yes, a merge seems an option too (and gets my vote for now as a
WP:ATD).
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete no need to merge, there is already enough coverage of this non-notable thing in the proposed target. - Roxy the dog 08:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, and preferably expand the article to also cover the supposed UFO landing it's meant to memorate. sv:Clas Svahn, a respected journalist, co-wrote an entire book about the UFO incident (Mötet i gläntan), including the monument, published in 1995 (new and expanded edition in 2015). There's this longish article in Sydsvenskan, or this one in Helsingborgs Dagblad, there have been guided tours at the monument, we have pretty long articles on restoration and upkeep of the monument, and so on. I agree with the sentiment above that the UFO sighting and the monument should be treated in one article, but based on the available sources, I'd argue the article on the monument in itself is worth keeping for the time being, due to sustained interest over time. / Julle ( talk) 03:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep but replace the 2008 photo in the article with these two from 2021, including a drone shot: c:File:UFO-monumentet_i_Ängelholm_1.jpg and c:File:UFO-monumentet_i_Ängelholm_2.jpg. Versions of the article in other languages appear to have more information to help expand. 5Q5| ✉ 12:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)- Keep - It's a legitimate statue and local landmark with backing from the municipality as a tourist attraction. Yes it's obscure and in Sweden, but it is a genuinely interesting article and one I imagine potential visitors to the area would read. AtFirstLight ( talk) 08:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review after article expansion. A reminder this AFD isn't about a UFO encounter but about a memorial sculpture and whether or not it is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)- Well actually it's about the article. And the article is not in a straitjacket. The article is about, or at least talks about, both event and memorial. Has to. So,the part on the actual (supposed) event could be expanded (or not). The article could be renamed to "UFO incident at Ängelholm" and the part about the memorial put in a separate section (or not). Or whatever. But, just to point out, none of these improvements can happen if the article is, I don't know, erased. Right? Herostratus ( talk) 20:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I am not seeing any reliable sources that mention this topic (reference 1 and 5 are totally unreliable and should be removed).
Psychologist Guy (
talk) 16:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: I replaced the first source after seeing this comment. Reference 5 is being used a primary source; I didn't look for a replacement because it just covers a single sentence that I'm not sure belongs in the article. The best sources in the article appear to references 8 and 9, added by Julle. These are 2 newspaper articles from a major Swedish newspaper that specifically talk about the monument, its condition, its maintenance, and the area's attitude towards it. Sadly they are both paywalled and Swedish language. Expanding that last sentence into a paragraph or two would, I think, push this easily towards keep. The Roswell incident is now largely considered to have been mundane, but the alien autopsy museum out there is still notable. Rjjiii ( talk) 17:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Psychologist Guy: I'd argue that Sydsvenskan and Helsingborgs Dagblad are reliable? Not from the UFO angle but as the dominating newspapers in southern Sweden, which is the relevant region here. And Dick Harrison is a respected historian, here writing in Svenska Dagbladet, one of the most respected newspapers in Sweden. / Julle ( talk) 17:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)- Keep. The memorial is "listed as a heritage site by the Swedish National Heritage Board site number RAÄ Strövelstrop 47:1" Anders Högberg, Cornelius Holtorf, Cultural Heritage and the Future. (2020). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis. CT55555( talk) 02:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. When put up for deletion these were the sources:
- Crone, Billy (23 March 2018). UFO's: The Great Last Days Deception. ISBN 9781948766012.
- "Contactee Wayne Aho and the October 1965 Swedish "sky train"" (PDF). (187 KiB), Clas Svahn, Archives for UFO Research Foundation Newsletter, Issue 48, Page 2.
- Childress, David Hatcher (1991). Vimana Aircraft of Ancient India & Atlantis. ISBN 9780932813121.
- "FAQ - Svar på vanliga frågor om UFO och UFO-Sverige". <www.ufo.se> (in Swedish). UFO-Sweden. Archived from the original on 2008-04-25. Retrieved 2008-05-06. "Några övertygande bevis för att händelsen gått till som Gösta Carlsson beskrev den finns inte"
- These are the current sources:
- Carlsson, Bo; Backman, Jyri; Stark, Tobias (June 2022). "The hegemonic impact of the NHL and the 'Americanization' of Swedish ice hockey and resistance: Rögle BK as 'hockey culture'". Sport in Society. 25 (6): 1125–1141. ISSN 1743-0437. Retrieved 2023-01-29. "Gösta Carlsson, in addition to his influence and legacy for Rögle BK, is locally well-known for his self-proclaimed UFO experiences, allegedly having been in close contact with aliens."
- "Världens första monument över "flygande tefat"". Arbetet. 29 September 1972.
- Dick Harrison (28 April 2017). "UFO i Skåne?". Svenska Dagbladet.
- RAÄ-nummer Strövelstorp 47:1
- "FAQ - Svar på vanliga frågor om UFO och UFO-Sverige". <www.ufo.se> (in Swedish). UFO-Sweden. Archived from the original on 2008-04-25. Retrieved 2008-05-06. "Några övertygande bevis för att händelsen gått till som Gösta Carlsson beskrev den finns inte"
- Oscarsson, Mattias (18 December 2022). "Finns sanningen om utomjordingarna i ett arkiv i Norrköping?". Sydsvenskan (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023.
- Anders Högberg, Cornelius Holtorf, Cultural Heritage and the Future. (2020). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis
- Gunnarsson, Evelina (20 July 2015). "Nu röjs det kring ufot". Helsingborgs Dagblad (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023.
- Niklasson, Anette (11 July 2022). "Guidade turer vid ufo-monumentet". Helsingborgs Dagblad (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023
- Red sources were removed, green sources were added, and the one source in black remains. Perhaps we should ping earlier commenters or the Fringe board to get updates on the current state? Additionally is there a good way/place to reach out to Swedish/English editors? Rjjiii ( talk) 20:19, 11 February 2023 (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.