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. WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 16:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

UFO sightings in outer space

UFO sightings in outer space (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous article on this topic was deleted two months ago as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space. The new one differs sufficiently in content to disqualify it from CSD G4., but still fails to address many of the concerns raised in that AfD. Additionally the new article is completely unreferenced. W.  D.  Graham 18:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Unreferenced and much of the time unintelligible. I can't even understand what some of the entries are supposed to mean ("Silver, egg like body with a green light, followed by a time capsule, and disappeared through"). Followed by a "time capsule"? Disappeared through what? If an article on this topic is to exist, it needs to be clear what it covers and to reference it. Incidentally, it remains unclear what the phrase "flying object" is supposed to mean in this context. Paul B ( talk) 18:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete inasmuch as it is "different in content" it still qualifies for deletion under the same rationale. jps ( talk) 19:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Gibberish, no WP:RS. In fact, no sources at all, just a ref to a book written in Serbian. Seduisant ( talk) 19:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Basically unverifiable. A complete lack of reliable sources that could be used to cite the material presented. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. What is a "UFO shaped object"? If one can define the shape of a UFO surely it's not unidentified any more and therefore not a UFO. Spinning Spark 23:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Besides the obvious problems with content, we definitely need reliable sources on fringe content like this. I'm quite certain there's a wiki on Wikia.com dedicated to UFO conspiracies, and this belongs there. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

  There certainly is, Wikia: UFO-Alien Database, but I'm not going to transwiki it. Last time I moved an AFD to Wikia it got deleted on sight. Spinning Spark 23:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete obviously. Unverifiable nonsense, and badly written at that. Guy ( Help!) 09:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This topic has already been deleted once. Lack of notability is this case is also not temporary. Carrite ( talk) 16:05, 16 April 2014 (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.