- 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. j⚛e decker talk 06:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Portage County UFO chase
- Portage County UFO chase ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominated after a discussion at WP:FTN. There does not seem to be a lot of independent sourcing that we would find necessary for a stand-alone article. Some of the details could be kept on list articles or in text on the article about Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but otherwise it seems that this particular UFO encounter simply isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 01:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Article is based entirely on fringe sources and a single very brief reference in a sensationalistic article in popular science, bolstered with a massive dose of original research. Frankly, none of the sources is reliable enough to confirm that this event occurred at all, never mind that it is notable. Nothing worth saving or merging. Belongs on some fringe UFO wiki someplace, but certainly not here. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 12:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and merge a summary based on a reliable independent source to a list article of UFO sightings. The present article is unduly weighted with breathless detail by UFOlogists like Jerome Clark who tend to emphasize the sensational. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This entire rambling story appears to be sourced to Jerome Clark who is not, under any circumstances, RS. DOCUMENT ★ ERROR 21:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as per comments by Dominus Vobisdu Nickm57 ( talk) 06:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- This may be off tangent a bit, but I'm curious as to why Jerome Clark is listed as "not, under any cirucumstances" a reliable source. Certainly using a single source for an article is never a good idea - or appropriate for an encyclopedia article - but I haven't heard any specific details as to why he's not reliable. Has anyone actually read any of his books or examined the sources he uses? As for the claim that he emphasizes the sensational, the linked article doesn't sound all that sensational, as Clark at the end even writes "most supposed anomalies will eventually be explained in conventional terms, either as delusions or as misinterpreted mundane events, and a few will prove rather more interesting than that." That doesn't sound very "sensational", and the rest of his article is a rather non-sensational critique of some debunkers, not all of them (he does note that some skeptics are themselves critical of other skeptics, which also doesn't sound unreasonable or in error). Are there any specific reasons - that is, details or examples from his writings - that makes him unreliable? If so it's certainly understandable why he shouldn't be used as a source for ariticles, but I haven't seen any specific reasons listed. As for the Portage County UFO article itself, if it uses only one "ufologist" source, then no doubt it should be deleted, if not extensively rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.64.244 ( talk) 18:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- He's a
ufologist. He's a regular guest on ufology podcasts and entertainment TV shows along with other ufologists. I'm always surprised people want to portray him as a journalist or a historian or a disinterested academic encyclopedia writer. As for sensationalism, co-authoring
books with Loren Coleman about "creatures of the outer edge" isn't sensational? -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, maybe it's because some people have actually read his books and find them to be largely what you described. Yes, he writes about UFOs, but I fail to see how that automatically makes him an unreliable source. The link you provided only states that he writes about UFOs, which, the last time I checked, was not an automatic sign that someone is unreliable, particularly given that no one has yet stated that they've actually read any of his books or articles, and thus don't really know what he says about particular cases or events. As for the book he co-wrote with Coleman, what does he actually write about the "creatures from the outer edge?" Does he say they're real, or does he simply describe them as folk tales and urban legends, and even debunk some of the sightings himself? What sources are used in the book? There is a real difference there. If being a ufologist (UFO researcher) is automatic disqualification as a source, then UFO skeptics like Philip Klass also couldn't be used as reliable sources, nor could people like Dr. J. Allen Hynek, a ufologist who also happened to be the Chair of Astronomy at Northwestern University and a scientific consultant to Project Sign, Project Grudge, and Project Blue Book for over two decades. What I find curious is the clear assumption that anyone who writes about UFOs (a "ufologist") is automatically an unreliable source, without anyone apparently having read their material to determine that they are, in fact, unreliable. I happen to have read Clark's books, as well as those of other "ufologists", and all of the books by skeptics like Klass, Menzel, Shaeffer, Peebles, etc. and Clark strikes me as being many cuts above UFO "true believers" like Art Bell, Ray Stanford, Richard Hall, etc. In none of his articles that I have read does he claim that UFOs are ships from outer space or that little green men are visiting the Earth, and in fact Clark debunks a number of UFO cases in his books, such as the 1896 Aurora, TX case (which turned out to be a hoax from a local liar's club). He does argue that some UFO cases are unsolved or unexplained, but that's very different from claiming they're of alien origin, which appears to be the standard here for determining someone is an unreliable source. I certainly don't agree with everything he writes, but that's true of a great many books I've read, including those that have nothing to do with the paranormal, and I don't discount the reliability of those writers because I don't necessarily agree with their slant on something. I'm constantly amused by the assumption here, which I think is erroneous, that all UFO writers are the same, have the same perspectives, and therefore are all lumped in the "unreliable" category and dismissed as a credible source. There are certainly degrees of idiocy on this topic, as there are on all topics. I just don't get the impression that many people here have actually read any of his writings; they're just labeling him as unreliable based on guilt-by-association tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:691E:5A29:F0AA:B487:5800:D954 ( talk) 03:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- He's a
ufologist. He's a regular guest on ufology podcasts and entertainment TV shows along with other ufologists. I'm always surprised people want to portray him as a journalist or a historian or a disinterested academic encyclopedia writer. As for sensationalism, co-authoring
books with Loren Coleman about "creatures of the outer edge" isn't sensational? -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (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. j⚛e decker talk 06:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Portage County UFO chase
- Portage County UFO chase ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominated after a discussion at WP:FTN. There does not seem to be a lot of independent sourcing that we would find necessary for a stand-alone article. Some of the details could be kept on list articles or in text on the article about Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but otherwise it seems that this particular UFO encounter simply isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 01:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Article is based entirely on fringe sources and a single very brief reference in a sensationalistic article in popular science, bolstered with a massive dose of original research. Frankly, none of the sources is reliable enough to confirm that this event occurred at all, never mind that it is notable. Nothing worth saving or merging. Belongs on some fringe UFO wiki someplace, but certainly not here. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 12:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and merge a summary based on a reliable independent source to a list article of UFO sightings. The present article is unduly weighted with breathless detail by UFOlogists like Jerome Clark who tend to emphasize the sensational. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This entire rambling story appears to be sourced to Jerome Clark who is not, under any circumstances, RS. DOCUMENT ★ ERROR 21:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as per comments by Dominus Vobisdu Nickm57 ( talk) 06:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- This may be off tangent a bit, but I'm curious as to why Jerome Clark is listed as "not, under any cirucumstances" a reliable source. Certainly using a single source for an article is never a good idea - or appropriate for an encyclopedia article - but I haven't heard any specific details as to why he's not reliable. Has anyone actually read any of his books or examined the sources he uses? As for the claim that he emphasizes the sensational, the linked article doesn't sound all that sensational, as Clark at the end even writes "most supposed anomalies will eventually be explained in conventional terms, either as delusions or as misinterpreted mundane events, and a few will prove rather more interesting than that." That doesn't sound very "sensational", and the rest of his article is a rather non-sensational critique of some debunkers, not all of them (he does note that some skeptics are themselves critical of other skeptics, which also doesn't sound unreasonable or in error). Are there any specific reasons - that is, details or examples from his writings - that makes him unreliable? If so it's certainly understandable why he shouldn't be used as a source for ariticles, but I haven't seen any specific reasons listed. As for the Portage County UFO article itself, if it uses only one "ufologist" source, then no doubt it should be deleted, if not extensively rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.64.244 ( talk) 18:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- He's a
ufologist. He's a regular guest on ufology podcasts and entertainment TV shows along with other ufologists. I'm always surprised people want to portray him as a journalist or a historian or a disinterested academic encyclopedia writer. As for sensationalism, co-authoring
books with Loren Coleman about "creatures of the outer edge" isn't sensational? -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, maybe it's because some people have actually read his books and find them to be largely what you described. Yes, he writes about UFOs, but I fail to see how that automatically makes him an unreliable source. The link you provided only states that he writes about UFOs, which, the last time I checked, was not an automatic sign that someone is unreliable, particularly given that no one has yet stated that they've actually read any of his books or articles, and thus don't really know what he says about particular cases or events. As for the book he co-wrote with Coleman, what does he actually write about the "creatures from the outer edge?" Does he say they're real, or does he simply describe them as folk tales and urban legends, and even debunk some of the sightings himself? What sources are used in the book? There is a real difference there. If being a ufologist (UFO researcher) is automatic disqualification as a source, then UFO skeptics like Philip Klass also couldn't be used as reliable sources, nor could people like Dr. J. Allen Hynek, a ufologist who also happened to be the Chair of Astronomy at Northwestern University and a scientific consultant to Project Sign, Project Grudge, and Project Blue Book for over two decades. What I find curious is the clear assumption that anyone who writes about UFOs (a "ufologist") is automatically an unreliable source, without anyone apparently having read their material to determine that they are, in fact, unreliable. I happen to have read Clark's books, as well as those of other "ufologists", and all of the books by skeptics like Klass, Menzel, Shaeffer, Peebles, etc. and Clark strikes me as being many cuts above UFO "true believers" like Art Bell, Ray Stanford, Richard Hall, etc. In none of his articles that I have read does he claim that UFOs are ships from outer space or that little green men are visiting the Earth, and in fact Clark debunks a number of UFO cases in his books, such as the 1896 Aurora, TX case (which turned out to be a hoax from a local liar's club). He does argue that some UFO cases are unsolved or unexplained, but that's very different from claiming they're of alien origin, which appears to be the standard here for determining someone is an unreliable source. I certainly don't agree with everything he writes, but that's true of a great many books I've read, including those that have nothing to do with the paranormal, and I don't discount the reliability of those writers because I don't necessarily agree with their slant on something. I'm constantly amused by the assumption here, which I think is erroneous, that all UFO writers are the same, have the same perspectives, and therefore are all lumped in the "unreliable" category and dismissed as a credible source. There are certainly degrees of idiocy on this topic, as there are on all topics. I just don't get the impression that many people here have actually read any of his writings; they're just labeling him as unreliable based on guilt-by-association tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:691E:5A29:F0AA:B487:5800:D954 ( talk) 03:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- He's a
ufologist. He's a regular guest on ufology podcasts and entertainment TV shows along with other ufologists. I'm always surprised people want to portray him as a journalist or a historian or a disinterested academic encyclopedia writer. As for sensationalism, co-authoring
books with Loren Coleman about "creatures of the outer edge" isn't sensational? -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (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.