- 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. After eight days, nobody has stepped forward to attempt to fix an article that is such a mess of poor sourcing, nor even to state affirmatively that it must be kept. One editor's comments falls into the category of what about x?. In seven years as an editor, I have not heard of anyone arguing that UFO articles in (fill in the nation) is per se notable; rather, WP:FRINGE specifically precludes such a conclusion. Please see WP:REFUND if anyone wants to try at some time in the future to bring this back. Bearian ( talk) 14:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
UFO sightings in Iraq
- UFO sightings in Iraq ( | 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 found indicating this UFO rumor is notable. Brief mention here [1] in context of misidentification of drones. Article entirely based on WP:FRINGE sources. LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as nomination, sources run the full spectrum from routine UFO fansites to out and out barking mad conspiracy theorist. No reason why UFO sighings here are particularly notable. TheLongTone ( talk) 17:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. One could argue that this article should discuss the misidentification of drones as alien spaceships, but I don't really see how that's especially notable. We already discuss such things in UFO. Rehashing it here doesn't really do anything. Besides that, we're left with unreliable fringe sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, NinjaRobotPirate, TheLongTone. Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 11:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment We have UFO sightings in the United Kingdom, UFO sightings in Brazil, UFO sightings in Canada, UFO sightings in France, UFO sightings in Australia, UFO sightings in China, UFO sightings in Belarus, UFO sightings in Argentina, UFO sightings in India, UFO sightings in Italy, UFO sightings in Sweden, UFO sightings in Indonesia, UFO sightings in the Philippines, UFO sightings in Belgium, UFO sightings in Portugal, UFO sightings in Spain, UFO sightings in Iran, UFO sightings in Norway, UFO sightings in Russia, UFO sightings in Mexico, UFO sightings in the Canary Islands, UFO sightings in South Africa, UFO sightings in New Zealand and UFO sightings in the United States. Is there some particular reason that UFO sightings in Iraq are non-notable? I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it seems that the general rule is to keep articles such as this. Rather than proposing a single one for deletion, it would be more appropriate to propose merging them all into a List of UFO sightings by country. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Good grief, I could spend years cleaning the unreliable fringe sources from those articles. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 17:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's one of the reasons why I tend to avoid certain areas of Wikipedia: I know it will cause me nothing but grief to look at the articles. But it makes for a nice rainy day project, I suppose.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 12:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- My point is that singling out one of these articles is not going to be a productive way of going about this. Either they should all be nominated for deletion or we should attempt a mega-merge into
List of UFO sightings by country. Somehow I struggle to see consensus emerging for either of them.
GoldenRing (
talk) 12:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- We don't really have precedent on Wikipedia. Each article is judged individually. In my opinion, it's a valid discussion topic to raise the issue that certain articles have been deleted or kept, but that's all it is: a talking point. This is generally referred to as "
what about X?" and "
other stuff exists". Just because one sub-topic is notable doesn't mean that every related sub-topic is notable, and vice versa. It's not a bad idea to suggest an article that these less notable articles could be merged into, though. The problem is that we would need something to merge. Fringe sources don't become any less fringe when they're merged.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 21:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- If that's a complete list there are still more countries that don't have articles than ones that do. In any case, it's simply
WP:OTHERSTUFF.
TheLongTone (
talk) 15:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But responding with, "If that's a complete list there are still more countries that don't have articles than ones that do," is at least equally an
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I suggest that some people here go and read
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rather than merely taking its name in vain. There you will find:
- It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.
- It's hard to think of a case more on point than this; it appears that there is an existing consensus that the category of articles 'UFO signtings in X' are notable where there is enough material to make an article. My point was, and still is, that deleting these piecemeal is not the most productive way of going about this. The contention that, "each article is judged individually," is plainly wrong; if you skim through
WP:AfD you will find numerous nominations for multiple articles combined. It would be appropriate, in my view, to merge these into one article or, if the consensus is that there is no material to be saved in them, to delete them in bulk.
GoldenRing (
talk) 17:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Plainly wrong? We'll see.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do you contend that there are no AfDs for multiple articles? GoldenRing ( talk) 08:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Plainly wrong? We'll see.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But responding with, "If that's a complete list there are still more countries that don't have articles than ones that do," is at least equally an
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I suggest that some people here go and read
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rather than merely taking its name in vain. There you will find:
- If that's a complete list there are still more countries that don't have articles than ones that do. In any case, it's simply
WP:OTHERSTUFF.
TheLongTone (
talk) 15:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- We don't really have precedent on Wikipedia. Each article is judged individually. In my opinion, it's a valid discussion topic to raise the issue that certain articles have been deleted or kept, but that's all it is: a talking point. This is generally referred to as "
what about X?" and "
other stuff exists". Just because one sub-topic is notable doesn't mean that every related sub-topic is notable, and vice versa. It's not a bad idea to suggest an article that these less notable articles could be merged into, though. The problem is that we would need something to merge. Fringe sources don't become any less fringe when they're merged.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 21:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- My point is that singling out one of these articles is not going to be a productive way of going about this. Either they should all be nominated for deletion or we should attempt a mega-merge into
List of UFO sightings by country. Somehow I struggle to see consensus emerging for either of them.
GoldenRing (
talk) 12:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's one of the reasons why I tend to avoid certain areas of Wikipedia: I know it will cause me nothing but grief to look at the articles. But it makes for a nice rainy day project, I suppose.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 12:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Good grief, I could spend years cleaning the unreliable fringe sources from those articles. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 17:59, 15 May 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. After eight days, nobody has stepped forward to attempt to fix an article that is such a mess of poor sourcing, nor even to state affirmatively that it must be kept. One editor's comments falls into the category of what about x?. In seven years as an editor, I have not heard of anyone arguing that UFO articles in (fill in the nation) is per se notable; rather, WP:FRINGE specifically precludes such a conclusion. Please see WP:REFUND if anyone wants to try at some time in the future to bring this back. Bearian ( talk) 14:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
UFO sightings in Iraq
- UFO sightings in Iraq ( | 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 found indicating this UFO rumor is notable. Brief mention here [1] in context of misidentification of drones. Article entirely based on WP:FRINGE sources. LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as nomination, sources run the full spectrum from routine UFO fansites to out and out barking mad conspiracy theorist. No reason why UFO sighings here are particularly notable. TheLongTone ( talk) 17:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. One could argue that this article should discuss the misidentification of drones as alien spaceships, but I don't really see how that's especially notable. We already discuss such things in UFO. Rehashing it here doesn't really do anything. Besides that, we're left with unreliable fringe sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, NinjaRobotPirate, TheLongTone. Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 11:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment We have UFO sightings in the United Kingdom, UFO sightings in Brazil, UFO sightings in Canada, UFO sightings in France, UFO sightings in Australia, UFO sightings in China, UFO sightings in Belarus, UFO sightings in Argentina, UFO sightings in India, UFO sightings in Italy, UFO sightings in Sweden, UFO sightings in Indonesia, UFO sightings in the Philippines, UFO sightings in Belgium, UFO sightings in Portugal, UFO sightings in Spain, UFO sightings in Iran, UFO sightings in Norway, UFO sightings in Russia, UFO sightings in Mexico, UFO sightings in the Canary Islands, UFO sightings in South Africa, UFO sightings in New Zealand and UFO sightings in the United States. Is there some particular reason that UFO sightings in Iraq are non-notable? I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it seems that the general rule is to keep articles such as this. Rather than proposing a single one for deletion, it would be more appropriate to propose merging them all into a List of UFO sightings by country. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Good grief, I could spend years cleaning the unreliable fringe sources from those articles. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 17:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's one of the reasons why I tend to avoid certain areas of Wikipedia: I know it will cause me nothing but grief to look at the articles. But it makes for a nice rainy day project, I suppose.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 12:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- My point is that singling out one of these articles is not going to be a productive way of going about this. Either they should all be nominated for deletion or we should attempt a mega-merge into
List of UFO sightings by country. Somehow I struggle to see consensus emerging for either of them.
GoldenRing (
talk) 12:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- We don't really have precedent on Wikipedia. Each article is judged individually. In my opinion, it's a valid discussion topic to raise the issue that certain articles have been deleted or kept, but that's all it is: a talking point. This is generally referred to as "
what about X?" and "
other stuff exists". Just because one sub-topic is notable doesn't mean that every related sub-topic is notable, and vice versa. It's not a bad idea to suggest an article that these less notable articles could be merged into, though. The problem is that we would need something to merge. Fringe sources don't become any less fringe when they're merged.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 21:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- If that's a complete list there are still more countries that don't have articles than ones that do. In any case, it's simply
WP:OTHERSTUFF.
TheLongTone (
talk) 15:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But responding with, "If that's a complete list there are still more countries that don't have articles than ones that do," is at least equally an
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I suggest that some people here go and read
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rather than merely taking its name in vain. There you will find:
- It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.
- It's hard to think of a case more on point than this; it appears that there is an existing consensus that the category of articles 'UFO signtings in X' are notable where there is enough material to make an article. My point was, and still is, that deleting these piecemeal is not the most productive way of going about this. The contention that, "each article is judged individually," is plainly wrong; if you skim through
WP:AfD you will find numerous nominations for multiple articles combined. It would be appropriate, in my view, to merge these into one article or, if the consensus is that there is no material to be saved in them, to delete them in bulk.
GoldenRing (
talk) 17:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Plainly wrong? We'll see.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do you contend that there are no AfDs for multiple articles? GoldenRing ( talk) 08:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Plainly wrong? We'll see.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But responding with, "If that's a complete list there are still more countries that don't have articles than ones that do," is at least equally an
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I suggest that some people here go and read
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rather than merely taking its name in vain. There you will find:
- If that's a complete list there are still more countries that don't have articles than ones that do. In any case, it's simply
WP:OTHERSTUFF.
TheLongTone (
talk) 15:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- We don't really have precedent on Wikipedia. Each article is judged individually. In my opinion, it's a valid discussion topic to raise the issue that certain articles have been deleted or kept, but that's all it is: a talking point. This is generally referred to as "
what about X?" and "
other stuff exists". Just because one sub-topic is notable doesn't mean that every related sub-topic is notable, and vice versa. It's not a bad idea to suggest an article that these less notable articles could be merged into, though. The problem is that we would need something to merge. Fringe sources don't become any less fringe when they're merged.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 21:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- My point is that singling out one of these articles is not going to be a productive way of going about this. Either they should all be nominated for deletion or we should attempt a mega-merge into
List of UFO sightings by country. Somehow I struggle to see consensus emerging for either of them.
GoldenRing (
talk) 12:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's one of the reasons why I tend to avoid certain areas of Wikipedia: I know it will cause me nothing but grief to look at the articles. But it makes for a nice rainy day project, I suppose.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 12:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Good grief, I could spend years cleaning the unreliable fringe sources from those articles. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 17:59, 15 May 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.