- 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 redirect to To the Stars (company). Opinion is split between merge and delete, and redirect is my usual compromise. Editors can still merge any worthwhile content to any other article. Sandstein 14:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Luis Elizondo
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Luis Elizondo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This WP:FRINGEBLP has been causing problems as UFO enthusiasts keep inserting a lot of content not directly about Elizondo but instead about the UFO sightings he is most excited about. I think that he is not independently notable per WP:BIO, certainly not WP:NACADEMIC. Off-handed mention or quotes in WP:SENSATIONal news articles do not justification for an article make. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy close this user has been edit warring on that page recently despite me and another user telling him to stop
[1]. Proposing the page for deletion is just an escalation
WP:BATTLEFIELD. Elizondo is clearly notable as the previous director of
AATIP and the original source for the videos of the
USS Nimitz UFO incident and the
USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents that have been recently officially declassified and released by the DoD (mostly due to the controversy surrounding Elizondo's release. He has been included in most stories by the NYT, Washington post etc. etc. with direct interviews and profiles. -- {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 12:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTINHERITED. Notable things and events associated with people do not automatically confer notability on the person.
jps (
talk) 12:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- He is one of the main reasons the world knows about those things and events. He has been at the center of debates by reputable sources regarding his role in all of those things and events. [2] [3] [4] (I could honestly go on for ages here). And please stop removing content and edit warring on that page? [5] -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTINHERITED. Notable things and events associated with people do not automatically confer notability on the person.
jps (
talk) 12:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* Speedy close There has been a edit war going on with this subject. No need to delete a page because of a edit war.
Driverofknowledge (
talk) 13:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet. See this. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 22:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Independently of any edit war that may have happened/be happening, there are legitimate " only known for one thing" and " the thing is more noteworthy than the person" concerns here, combined with an apparent lack of reliable biographical material, and so this looks like an article for which a good and forthright AfD debate would be legitimate. Actually, I don't see any fundamental reason why an edit war should rule out holding an AfD — it might bring heightened passions to one, but if the topic has fans, then those passions arrive anyway. So, I don't see a reason for a speedy close. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
XOR'easter: If others second this AfD (and this is not just a user turning wiki into a
WP:BATTLEGROUND I will retract my speedy close vote and commute it to a simple Keep. Although I would invite you to familiarise yourself with the topic a little bit before stating that he is "
only known for one thing". Although he is only known for his involvement with
Ufology (not much is known about his intelligence days), he is highly significant within that area, has been involved with many different topics (AATIP, Video disclosures of Nimitz and Roosevelt incidents, To the stars, congressional hearings, etc.), is basically the "host" of the Unidentified History channel series, and has been personally profiled by several reliable sources. I understand some people don't "like" what Elizondo does and the subject overall. But a quick Google search is sufficient to see he is clearly notable. -- {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 15:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I said that there were legitimate concerns, of the sort that a full AfD is the way to examine. (And "being involved with many different topics" is not the same thing as having reliable sources documenting his involvement and demonstrating that he played a significant rather than an incidental role.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
XOR'easter: If others second this AfD (and this is not just a user turning wiki into a
WP:BATTLEGROUND I will retract my speedy close vote and commute it to a simple Keep. Although I would invite you to familiarise yourself with the topic a little bit before stating that he is "
only known for one thing". Although he is only known for his involvement with
Ufology (not much is known about his intelligence days), he is highly significant within that area, has been involved with many different topics (AATIP, Video disclosures of Nimitz and Roosevelt incidents, To the stars, congressional hearings, etc.), is basically the "host" of the Unidentified History channel series, and has been personally profiled by several reliable sources. I understand some people don't "like" what Elizondo does and the subject overall. But a quick Google search is sufficient to see he is clearly notable. -- {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 15:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Merge With To the Stars. If Elizondo has any encyclopedic notability (and along those lines I refer readers to the 2019 article about him in The Intercept, which - for some reason - has escaped mention on the Elizondo page), it seems to be through his association and activities with To the Stars. I understand the legitimacy of the WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED concerns noted above by XOR'easter, but a merge seems to me appropriate. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 22:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- You mean this one?
[6]? -- {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes.
JoJo Anthrax (
talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- What about it specifically should we cover in the article? I'll gladly add it. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes.
JoJo Anthrax (
talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- You mean this one?
[6]? -- {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Merge With To the Stars (company). This is a UFOlogist conspiracy masquerading as a biography. If there is an independently notable topic, Elizondo is not it. Guy ( help!) 15:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- What "UFOlogist conspiracy"? All of the information in the article has been confirmed by the US Government. AATIP, Elizondo's Role, the videos he leaked. All of it has official confirmation. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to To the Stars (company) on the basis of WP:BLP1E as evidenced by a notable absence of coverage outside of mentions in news media regarding a recent UFO flap. A WP:BLP is expected to be more than a WP:COATRACK containing quotes from the subject claiming mysterious government opposition to UFO research and warning of potential aerial threats. The lack of independent analysis or critique for these claims, as well as zero common biographical detail such as education, background, etc. demonstrates that a standalone bio is WP:TOOSOON for this particular subject. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete No biographical information anywhere. Obviously this is not about the person, but the UFO reporting. The lede which should sum up the entire article clearly shows that this is a nothing burger. Maybe he loves his mom and never kicks his puppy, but we can't have biographies like this. Mention him on the Stars page but until he is Wikipedia notable on his own, moveon.org. Sgerbic ( talk) 16:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment several people are proposing to merge this with To the Stars (company). This is a significant point against WP:BLP1E as Elizondo is mainly notable for his association with Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program of which he was the director and original disclosure source. To the Stars is just the company he is consulting for at the moment. Should it be merged with both? And how would that merge practically work? If we should merge this anywhere it would be within AATIP where it would be more relevant and where coverage would make more sense.
- Sources:
Luis Elizondo, who led the Pentagon effort to investigate U.F.O.s until October.
NY TimesA former Pentagon official who led a recently revealed government program to research potential UFOs
CNNLuis Elizondo, who quit as head of the Advanced Threat Identification Programme (AATIP) two months ago, warned nations now “had to be conscious” of the potential threat posed by UFOs.
The Independent- AATIP is introduced and then...
Luis Elizondo headed it up and he said he and his colleague continued to work out of a Pentagon office...
BBC radio interview It’s the story that launched Luis Elizondo into the public eye, the article that “shocked the world,” the narrator of “Unidentified” declares, before continuing, “A clandestine U.S. government program had been investigating UFOs. For eight years, the secret program was run by this man, Lue Elizondo.”
the InterceptSpecial Agent In-Charge, Luis Elizondo, who confirmed the existence of the hidden government program, the controversial story was the focus of worldwide attention. Previously run by Elizondo, AATIP was created to research and investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)
Unidentified: History ChannelLuiz Elizondo, the former military intelligence officer who ran the real-life X-Files programme
telegraphAccording to a Pentagon official, the AATIP program was ended “in the 2012 time frame,” but it has recently attracted attention because of the resignation in early October of Luis Elizondo, the career intelligence officer who ran the initiative.
Politico
- I could go on. It should be noted that while most mention his affiliation to To the stars AFTER AATIP. Not all of them do. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
-
Principle of least astonishment. He is "Director of Global Security and Special Programs at To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science". The merge should go to
To the Stars (company), rather than an article about somewhere he was a few years ago. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 19:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- What does that principle mean here? A title in a much less notable company takes precedence over his official work in a highly notable government program? -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
-
Principle of least astonishment. He is "Director of Global Security and Special Programs at To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science". The merge should go to
To the Stars (company), rather than an article about somewhere he was a few years ago. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 19:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge. Per WP:TOOSOON. Lots of military people ran government programs both secret and public. Has he made it into any biographical dictionaries or history books or won any well-known honors or awards for his government UFO work per WP:ANYBIO (see Note 8)? As an example, look at the more impressive article for psychic-supporting Major General Albert Stubblebine, a name many here will immediately recognize. I support UFO research, just want to make that clear. My vote should not be considered anti-UFO and I would support an article on Elizondo in the future if he passes the test of time. 5Q5| ✉ 16:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
5Q5: Doesn't
WP:ANYBIO support keeping this page?
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.
Note 8 says that"significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.
is needed (not just "history books"). Isn't this exactly that case (see some of the sources cited above)? Also: if your vote is merge please clarify where we should merge this (see discussion above). Thanks.-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)- 5Q5 responds: The "significant press coverage" in Note 8 of WP:ANYBIO refers to politicians. I concur that Elizondo has made a "widely recognized contribution" to the field of UFOlogy, but it is just a question of whether it is short term or long term. The latter can be proven by providing multiple sources as time goes on for the next article creation for him, especially books or mainstream science articles of a historical nature that mention his contribution and how he changed the field. Or, he could write or co-write a book that becomes a best-seller. Until then, a section in To the Stars (company) would be appropriate in my opinion until such time that the needed quality sources can be collected for a stand-alone article. History writing comes after news stories. We are still in or just coming out of the news phase of Elizondo's contribution to the field of UFOlogy. Time will tell if he stays famous or fades away. 5Q5| ✉ 14:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
5Q5: Doesn't
WP:ANYBIO support keeping this page?
- 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 redirect to To the Stars (company). Opinion is split between merge and delete, and redirect is my usual compromise. Editors can still merge any worthwhile content to any other article. Sandstein 14:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Luis Elizondo
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Luis Elizondo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This WP:FRINGEBLP has been causing problems as UFO enthusiasts keep inserting a lot of content not directly about Elizondo but instead about the UFO sightings he is most excited about. I think that he is not independently notable per WP:BIO, certainly not WP:NACADEMIC. Off-handed mention or quotes in WP:SENSATIONal news articles do not justification for an article make. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy close this user has been edit warring on that page recently despite me and another user telling him to stop
[1]. Proposing the page for deletion is just an escalation
WP:BATTLEFIELD. Elizondo is clearly notable as the previous director of
AATIP and the original source for the videos of the
USS Nimitz UFO incident and the
USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents that have been recently officially declassified and released by the DoD (mostly due to the controversy surrounding Elizondo's release. He has been included in most stories by the NYT, Washington post etc. etc. with direct interviews and profiles. -- {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 12:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTINHERITED. Notable things and events associated with people do not automatically confer notability on the person.
jps (
talk) 12:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- He is one of the main reasons the world knows about those things and events. He has been at the center of debates by reputable sources regarding his role in all of those things and events. [2] [3] [4] (I could honestly go on for ages here). And please stop removing content and edit warring on that page? [5] -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTINHERITED. Notable things and events associated with people do not automatically confer notability on the person.
jps (
talk) 12:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* Speedy close There has been a edit war going on with this subject. No need to delete a page because of a edit war.
Driverofknowledge (
talk) 13:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet. See this. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 22:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Independently of any edit war that may have happened/be happening, there are legitimate " only known for one thing" and " the thing is more noteworthy than the person" concerns here, combined with an apparent lack of reliable biographical material, and so this looks like an article for which a good and forthright AfD debate would be legitimate. Actually, I don't see any fundamental reason why an edit war should rule out holding an AfD — it might bring heightened passions to one, but if the topic has fans, then those passions arrive anyway. So, I don't see a reason for a speedy close. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
XOR'easter: If others second this AfD (and this is not just a user turning wiki into a
WP:BATTLEGROUND I will retract my speedy close vote and commute it to a simple Keep. Although I would invite you to familiarise yourself with the topic a little bit before stating that he is "
only known for one thing". Although he is only known for his involvement with
Ufology (not much is known about his intelligence days), he is highly significant within that area, has been involved with many different topics (AATIP, Video disclosures of Nimitz and Roosevelt incidents, To the stars, congressional hearings, etc.), is basically the "host" of the Unidentified History channel series, and has been personally profiled by several reliable sources. I understand some people don't "like" what Elizondo does and the subject overall. But a quick Google search is sufficient to see he is clearly notable. -- {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 15:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I said that there were legitimate concerns, of the sort that a full AfD is the way to examine. (And "being involved with many different topics" is not the same thing as having reliable sources documenting his involvement and demonstrating that he played a significant rather than an incidental role.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
XOR'easter: If others second this AfD (and this is not just a user turning wiki into a
WP:BATTLEGROUND I will retract my speedy close vote and commute it to a simple Keep. Although I would invite you to familiarise yourself with the topic a little bit before stating that he is "
only known for one thing". Although he is only known for his involvement with
Ufology (not much is known about his intelligence days), he is highly significant within that area, has been involved with many different topics (AATIP, Video disclosures of Nimitz and Roosevelt incidents, To the stars, congressional hearings, etc.), is basically the "host" of the Unidentified History channel series, and has been personally profiled by several reliable sources. I understand some people don't "like" what Elizondo does and the subject overall. But a quick Google search is sufficient to see he is clearly notable. -- {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 15:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Merge With To the Stars. If Elizondo has any encyclopedic notability (and along those lines I refer readers to the 2019 article about him in The Intercept, which - for some reason - has escaped mention on the Elizondo page), it seems to be through his association and activities with To the Stars. I understand the legitimacy of the WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED concerns noted above by XOR'easter, but a merge seems to me appropriate. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 22:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- You mean this one?
[6]? -- {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes.
JoJo Anthrax (
talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- What about it specifically should we cover in the article? I'll gladly add it. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes.
JoJo Anthrax (
talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- You mean this one?
[6]? -- {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Merge With To the Stars (company). This is a UFOlogist conspiracy masquerading as a biography. If there is an independently notable topic, Elizondo is not it. Guy ( help!) 15:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- What "UFOlogist conspiracy"? All of the information in the article has been confirmed by the US Government. AATIP, Elizondo's Role, the videos he leaked. All of it has official confirmation. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to To the Stars (company) on the basis of WP:BLP1E as evidenced by a notable absence of coverage outside of mentions in news media regarding a recent UFO flap. A WP:BLP is expected to be more than a WP:COATRACK containing quotes from the subject claiming mysterious government opposition to UFO research and warning of potential aerial threats. The lack of independent analysis or critique for these claims, as well as zero common biographical detail such as education, background, etc. demonstrates that a standalone bio is WP:TOOSOON for this particular subject. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete No biographical information anywhere. Obviously this is not about the person, but the UFO reporting. The lede which should sum up the entire article clearly shows that this is a nothing burger. Maybe he loves his mom and never kicks his puppy, but we can't have biographies like this. Mention him on the Stars page but until he is Wikipedia notable on his own, moveon.org. Sgerbic ( talk) 16:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment several people are proposing to merge this with To the Stars (company). This is a significant point against WP:BLP1E as Elizondo is mainly notable for his association with Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program of which he was the director and original disclosure source. To the Stars is just the company he is consulting for at the moment. Should it be merged with both? And how would that merge practically work? If we should merge this anywhere it would be within AATIP where it would be more relevant and where coverage would make more sense.
- Sources:
Luis Elizondo, who led the Pentagon effort to investigate U.F.O.s until October.
NY TimesA former Pentagon official who led a recently revealed government program to research potential UFOs
CNNLuis Elizondo, who quit as head of the Advanced Threat Identification Programme (AATIP) two months ago, warned nations now “had to be conscious” of the potential threat posed by UFOs.
The Independent- AATIP is introduced and then...
Luis Elizondo headed it up and he said he and his colleague continued to work out of a Pentagon office...
BBC radio interview It’s the story that launched Luis Elizondo into the public eye, the article that “shocked the world,” the narrator of “Unidentified” declares, before continuing, “A clandestine U.S. government program had been investigating UFOs. For eight years, the secret program was run by this man, Lue Elizondo.”
the InterceptSpecial Agent In-Charge, Luis Elizondo, who confirmed the existence of the hidden government program, the controversial story was the focus of worldwide attention. Previously run by Elizondo, AATIP was created to research and investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)
Unidentified: History ChannelLuiz Elizondo, the former military intelligence officer who ran the real-life X-Files programme
telegraphAccording to a Pentagon official, the AATIP program was ended “in the 2012 time frame,” but it has recently attracted attention because of the resignation in early October of Luis Elizondo, the career intelligence officer who ran the initiative.
Politico
- I could go on. It should be noted that while most mention his affiliation to To the stars AFTER AATIP. Not all of them do. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
-
Principle of least astonishment. He is "Director of Global Security and Special Programs at To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science". The merge should go to
To the Stars (company), rather than an article about somewhere he was a few years ago. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 19:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- What does that principle mean here? A title in a much less notable company takes precedence over his official work in a highly notable government program? -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
-
Principle of least astonishment. He is "Director of Global Security and Special Programs at To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science". The merge should go to
To the Stars (company), rather than an article about somewhere he was a few years ago. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 19:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge. Per WP:TOOSOON. Lots of military people ran government programs both secret and public. Has he made it into any biographical dictionaries or history books or won any well-known honors or awards for his government UFO work per WP:ANYBIO (see Note 8)? As an example, look at the more impressive article for psychic-supporting Major General Albert Stubblebine, a name many here will immediately recognize. I support UFO research, just want to make that clear. My vote should not be considered anti-UFO and I would support an article on Elizondo in the future if he passes the test of time. 5Q5| ✉ 16:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
5Q5: Doesn't
WP:ANYBIO support keeping this page?
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.
Note 8 says that"significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.
is needed (not just "history books"). Isn't this exactly that case (see some of the sources cited above)? Also: if your vote is merge please clarify where we should merge this (see discussion above). Thanks.-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)- 5Q5 responds: The "significant press coverage" in Note 8 of WP:ANYBIO refers to politicians. I concur that Elizondo has made a "widely recognized contribution" to the field of UFOlogy, but it is just a question of whether it is short term or long term. The latter can be proven by providing multiple sources as time goes on for the next article creation for him, especially books or mainstream science articles of a historical nature that mention his contribution and how he changed the field. Or, he could write or co-write a book that becomes a best-seller. Until then, a section in To the Stars (company) would be appropriate in my opinion until such time that the needed quality sources can be collected for a stand-alone article. History writing comes after news stories. We are still in or just coming out of the news phase of Elizondo's contribution to the field of UFOlogy. Time will tell if he stays famous or fades away. 5Q5| ✉ 14:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
5Q5: Doesn't
WP:ANYBIO support keeping this page?
- 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.