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 no consensus. I hate to say this, but there's strong arguments on both sides ... so much so that I have to call "no consensus" as opposed to "keep" or "delete" the panda ₯’ 22:58, 17 May 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)

3rd time is a charm?

Seriously, folks, news of the weird is not a valid form of sourcing for WP:FRINGE articles such as this. We need validation from independent sources. That is not forthcoming. This is simply an admixture of synthetic original research and undue focus on ufologists. That the DRV was in favor of "restore" is absurd on the face of it because there was no consideration of these fundamentally problematic points. The sources being used are not high-quality enough to justify this article. jps ( talk) 02:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment this article was restored per this Deletion review. The version we are looking at is completely different from the one nominated prior. See, AfD 2, AfD 1.

• Strong Keep the nominator for reasons unknown chose to ignore multiple sources, the tone of the article is also highly skeptical. This article was written to document incidents where reliable sources (astronauts and trained witnesses) reported Unidentified Flying Objects during space exploration and high attitude flights. This article does not claim that they are of extraterrestrial origin

Here are the sources in the article:

• IBTimes
• Huff Post
• NYTimes
• IBTimes
• IBTimes
• NBC News
• These sighting were also covered in Condon Report and by James Oberg
• Sighting outside of the ISS launches the program "NASA's Unexplained Files" and was covered as part of the Science Channel's "Are We Alone?" series.
• It is also an element in science fiction The Astronaut's Wife and Space (The X-Files)

This is a widespread, everlasting, and recurring event in space exploration. There are additional sources within the article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The Huff Po has a whole section of content on UFOs and Bigfoots that is no more reliable than The Weekly World News and thats the stuff you are citing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

If you are to change the article please make sure all sources stay on the page. If you have issues please state them on the AfD not remove sources from an article undergoing AfD. Huff Post is considered RS section does not matter unless it is a blog, even then is may still be considered RS. Please breakdown each source and tell me how International Business Times NBC News, Fox News, and Popular Mechanics is not RS. These sources have been review by User:Jc37 and User:WilyD during the DRV. The nominator is claiming OR and SYNTH, please show me how that is true, because as far as I see the only rationale for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

These sources are all News of the Weird/Silly Season puff pieces, blogs (the claimed NYTimes piece is a blog, for example). This is just not the way we can write Wikipedia articles. It's simply not a topic that has generated the sources necessary to be able to write a straightforward piece. jps ( talk) 03:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Please elaborate, multiple sources are from IBT, Popular Mechanics, Fox News, and the others, suddenly they are unreliable when the nomination favors deletion. The standards have been set, we cannot say that sources are reliable in some cases and not others unless it is a blog. The NYT is a blog, but the others are not and subjected to editorial review. Not one line in the article is synthesis. They are directly stated by the source. Your suggestion that they are silly is ridiculous and seems more like a personal opinion than the standards set by GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't understand how you can't see the problem with these sources. IBTimes is clearly publishing sensationalistic puff-piece articles in their science section based off of evidence posted on YouTube! This is not what a reliable source looks like. The HuffPo blog source is simply awful and the NBC News source is obviously a News of the Weird piece. You don't have good sources. You simply don't. jps ( talk) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete and prevent from being re-created. It merely combines a variety of incidents without a source that connects them, hence it violates notablity and synthesis. Terrible title too - it sounds like a 1950s drive-in movie. TFD ( talk) 03:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Just to note, this subject has been studied in the Condon Report and by James Oberg both prominent with in the field. There are also multiple first hand accounts from experts in the field including astronauts and pilots. We cannot over look those. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Clarification It appears that there is a misunderstanding between the nomination and arguments against it. The nominator is suggesting the sources were written in the weird or joke section of reliable publications. For example certain sections of major publications focus on fringe and are not considered reliable because of dubious first hand accounts, such as a man in the woods with no credibility claiming he witnessed the unexplained. This is not the case. Sources are not only in the main section of these publications, but reference first hand accounts from creditable, highly trained associates including astronauts and expert pilots. Further, the claims were subject to systematic and scientific analysis that have been reoccurring throughout space exploration. This article does not claim that they are alien in origin, it documents the notability of astronauts reporting unexplained phenomenon during missions and the analysis of these reports thereafter. The premise of this AFD may be flawed and I ask the nominator, closing administrator, and further participants to reconsider the basis on which this article was nominated. Per notability of fringe:

A fringe subject is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents

This passes and hopefully address any issues going forward. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• • It is abundantly clear that the mainstream sources do not take this topic seriously. The ones that do are the ufologists, but we don't use ufologists to establish what topics are notable enough for inclusion. This is in addition to the problematic ways in which you cobbled together completely unrelated stories into an original research piece. This is simply not what Wikipedia is for. jps ( talk) 05:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

How mainstream media "takes it" has never been a requirement for an article documentation and reporting is what we look for. Please point examples where I have "cobbled together completely unrelated stories into an original research piece". Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The whole article is a mishmash of your WP:SYNTH and we definitely cannot be accommodating WP:FRINGE reporting like what you have included in that article. Please read the guidelines. jps ( talk) 15:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per TFD: no reliable source connects the incidents. (Maybe UFO and FRINGE sources like CUFOS, JSE & New Frontiers do...but they are not independent or reliable) - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The article does not connect the incidents. It documents their occurrence. There are sources in google books citations 31 - 40 which mention all incidents in one source. I have already stated plenty of reliable sources. These seems more like arguments for clean up than deletion. If a list is more appropriate that can be edited. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I've done some minor clean up for any possible synth. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

You cannot simply juxtapose two different and unrelated stories in the same article just because you think they are similar. That's the essence of WP:SYNTH. Since you have no source which documents "UFO sightings in space", you don't have a leg to stand on in writing this as a Wikipedia article. jps ( talk) 15:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

That's nowhere near the essence of WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTH is juxtaposing things to argue a point of view when that point of view is not justified by sources. The page is not trying to prove any thesis about UFO sightings, it's simply juxtaposing a number of reports. As Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not says, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

This article is arguing a point of view: that this hastily and shoddily researched collection of anecdotes are related. jps ( talk) 17:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I know that "other stuff exists" isn't a super solid justification, but there are a gazillion "UFO sightings in..." articles on wikipedia. Given the extensive amount of writing on the topic, it seems to be a big topic, something that people are interested in, something that people are writing about, something that people are reading about. What makes "UFO sightings in outer space" any different from UFO sightings in China or UFO sightings in America? Secondly, I'm not sure by what you mean by "mainstream sources do not take this topic seriously"? An unidentified flying object is an unidentified flying object. Perhaps if it was a bunch of tweakers who reported seeing some lights you could say that that wasn't a reliable reporting, but an astronaut reporting flying objects is the same as an astronaut reporting what the temperature was outside when he was in orbit. Do you mean mainstream sources don't believe they were aliens? I doubt the astronauts did either, so I'm not sure why its relevant. Secondly, I agree with Valoem in that I don't think it matters who takes it seriously. If a group of people are interested in it and it gets considerable coverage in the media, it counts. I don't believe in phrenology or polygraph testing and many people believe them to be pseudoscience. I don't believe in scientology or hinduism either, but they have had an impact on society and that counts as notable in wikipedia. Bali88 ( talk) 14:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:NFRINGE disagrees with your claim about simply relying on media coverage. The coverage has to be serious coverage. This is not a topic that has received serious coverage. jps ( talk) 15:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Per WP:NFRINGE this article passes and has received serious coverage. Your personal disagreement does not reflect wikipedia guidelines. I can repost the guideline if you would like. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

In addition to questionable sources like HuffPo, the article is unduly weighted to sources that are unmistakeably fringe:

• Anything by Light Technology Publishing ("Our Cosmic Ancestors"? Really??)
• Anything by William J. Birnes (he's way out on the fringe of the fringe)
• ‪Chris A. Rutkowski‬'s book ("best and most disturbing UFO stories"?)
• Don Berliner's UFO conspiracy book ("The shattering report that stunned the world's top leaders!!!!")
• Richard Dolan Press (a UFO monger blog and selfpub operation)
• Real UFO's (an unreliable UFO believer site)
• New Frontiers in Science (a fringe pseudoscience venue)
• Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration (admittedly fringe focus)
• "vgl.org" (Some guy's fringe conspiracy website?)
• Paranormal Borderlands, Fox TV (notably unreliable)

There may be more, but I think you must see the problem here extends beyond the obvious synthesis. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

@Valoem: This is not the place to take writers of articles as wretched as this to school. The commenters here have been clear what the problems are and I can only surmise that you have a comprehension issue with regards to their attempted explanations. If you can't figure out the problems, then Wikipedia may not be the place for you. Alternatively, if you have additional questions as to why your sources are terrible, please feel free to ask at WP:RSN. jps ( talk) 15:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Paranormal Borderlands in the first hand interview found here. The rest of the argument is for clean up. Again I ask you to revisit:

A fringe subject is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents

Covered by James Oberg (extensively), IBTimes, Fox News, and Popular Mechanics (all RS). I find it discouraging that editors come here with the intention to delete this article due to inherit bias and no intention of analyzing rationale as their minds have been made. Even when disproved the continuation of the same argument is not conducive. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I find it discouraging too. It seems like their pov is that the only people taking UFO's seriously are UFOlogists and that's a problem because ufologists are unreliable. Basically "I don't take this topic seriously, so anyone who is interested in it I can't take seriously". Not exactly an unbiased viewpoint. Imo, it's only borderline fringy. A UFO is simply an unidentified object. Maybe if people are trying to say they're alien space ships or something, but the fact is if you see something in the air and don't know what it is, it's a UFO. Nothing fringy about that. Bali88 ( talk) 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The issue with unreliable sources is that people may question whether any one specific sighting didn't happen, I don't see why we couldn't just find an alternate source for that piece of information or delete that specific entry. There's no reason to throw out the entire article when there's an established set of articles on wikipedia of UFO sightings in different locations. This is a pretty well documented topic, one that is widely discussed, debated, has television shows about it. UFO discussions are a big part of our culture. It's definitely tougher to find reliable sources for UFO stuff because of how its perceived, but it's a notable topic and for whatever reason wikipedians have decided to split up UFO sightings into geographic location. I don't see any reason to delete the page. Bali88 ( talk) 15:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per TFD. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt. Three deletion discussions in three months is crap. Whoever recreated this article should be admonished for trying to pull a fast one and for wasting the community’s time. It is abundantly clear that the community does not think that this topic deserves a dedicated article. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 16:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt. Synthesis, based on material that doesn't remotely pass WP:RS. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Per Colapeninsula, "WP:SYNTH is juxtaposing things to argue a point of view when that point of view is not justified by sources. The page is not trying to prove any thesis about UFO sightings, it's simply juxtaposing a number of reports. As Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not says, 'SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition'" Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I call complete crapdoodle on any claim that the article is not attempting to advance a proposition or idea. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete and salt. You might as well have an entry about sightings of fairies. Skeptic2 ( talk) 20:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt. Salting is the only way to stop propagandist fringe articles like this from coming back. While UFO sightings may be slightly more culturally acceptable than leprechaun and fairy sightings, they are equally fringe, and require extremely high quality sources, not pop culture UFO books. Since there is absolutely no serious academic or scientific support for this topic, the only thing we can possibly say is that fringe groups believe in it. That's already covered in various other articles. It does not need to be repeated in its own article. Wikipedia is not here to be an advocate for fringe viewpoints. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The language you're using concerns me. I understand the salting concept. It's been created a couple times after being deleted without solving the underlying issues. But why are you so concerned that it never comes back? When I vote on an AFD, even if I vote to delete the article, I often tell the author what the article needs to be kept and encourage them to fix it. If they are unable to produce what is needed, I'll encourage them to find a place for a mention in other articles and if that doesn't work, I'll encourage them to find another place online to post about the topic. My concern is the quality of wikipedia articles and how well they fit in with policies. While it's not our job to advocate fringe viewpoints, it's also not our job to delete articles because we think the ideas are incorrect. Also, I don't think academic or scientific support is really what we should focus on here. It's good enough that the topic is culturally relevant. I don't think there is academic or scientific support for the bible either and Freud was clearly a hack. But they're relevant because of the cultural influence. UFO's have impacted our culture regardless of whether mainstream scientists believe they have some scientific significance. Google UFO's and you get millions of hits. There are dozens of articles about UFO's on wikipedia alone. There are a number of very successful television shows about UFO's. Ancient Aliens has very high viewership. Thousands upon thousands of books on UFO's. UFO's are a culturally relevant topic. Now, if there is an issue with the tone of the article or the reliability of the sources, that should be focused on, but I don't see why we would require that this particular topic have more strict requirements for sources than other articles. The ufo sightings articles on wikipedia seem to break it down by region. I don't see why this specific article is being repeatedly deleted and the rest being kept. Bali88 ( talk) 01:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

So i take it we are just ignoring these sources:

• IBTimes
• Huff Post
• NYTimes
• IBTimes
• IBTimes
• NBC News
• Fox News
• Popular Mechanics
• These sighting were also covered in Condon Report and by James Oberg

The Popular Mechanics is directly from the Science space section. Until someone can explain why these sources are problematic I am seeing only WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Remember this is not a vote. Each of this sources must be analyzed individually because they are mainstream and reliable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT please review above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Are you sure you're not using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 10:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is a minor subset fo claimed UFO sightings, it is not significant. The purported sources don't identify the notability of the subject any more than news stories about a celeb on holiday justify articles on "Celeb in Barbados" or whatever. Guy ( Help!) 22:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Since this has been up, many, many sources have been identified. At this point, the subject (as fringey as it sounds) meets notability requirements. As such, I have changed my merge vote to a keep vote Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 00:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If any of these flaps are notable I would have expected them to be mentioned significantly in the articles about the relevant missions. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There is no evidence of UFO sightings in outer space. Who wrote this hoax article? If there is any significant it can be merged into the UFO article. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge - by Valoem's reasoning. It was reviewed before recreating. Ufo stories by astronauts have also been long documented. The sighting of Ufos may be physical or psychological phenomena, and aren't being claimed to definitely be alien craft. If we treat it as urban legend the topic can still be covered.

• http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48790315/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/debunking-myths-about-neil-armstrong/#.U2iuuSgf7rZ
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/02/nasa-unexplained-files-are-we-alone-science-channel_n_4880334.html
• http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/459798/20130422/ufo-sightings-nasa-international-space-station-video.htm
• http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/GT07_061.PDF, http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_1_carlotto.pdf
• http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4319637
• http://www.space.com/22431-nasa-astronaut-sees-ufo-near-space-station-video.html

Amongst others by International Business Times and Huffington Post are indisputable reliable sources. Are significantly more sources needed than the bare minimum when a topic becomes idontlikeit? - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 10:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The HuffPo is NOT "indisputable reliable" - it covers bigfoot sightings for godsake. And the NBC source says definitively that the incident was NOT a UFO sighting and so cannot possibly be used to justify an article about UFO sightings. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I feel like you're looking at this the wrong way. You're saying these fringy things aren't reliable because they don't have reliable sources. Then one is pointed out you say it's not reliable because it covers fringy things. Basically, there's no source that could ever possibly count because as soon as one covers it you say "well this isn't reliable because it covers this topic that I don't believe in". The logic behind that is flawed. I don't believe in aliens and I don't believe in bigfoot. But the fact that a mainstream news paper is covering them proves that they are culturally significant. That is all that's needed for a wikipedia article. Bali88 ( talk) 14:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Accusing me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is absurd. In the context of WP:FRINGE evidence is not a requirement, neither is being covered during the mission, arguments suggesting that we didn't hear about this all over the news is ridiculous and has never been a requirement. The question remains whether this has been covered in mainstream media and has been analysed through serious investigation. Coverage in the Condon Report and James Oberg passes. It is WP:OSTRISH to claim that one or two sources have issues when five or more reliable sources remain unquestioned. The fact is there are plenty of sources that warrant an article on this subject. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Also WP:FRINGE considers a theory notable even if it is proven a hoax (that is a fundamental of the guideline page). It depends on the coverage received by mainstream sources, which this has. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

You keep saying that but you have provided no coverage that there is actual coverage of the "hoax of sightings of UFOs in space" - there are sources discreditings/dismissing/or otherwise showing each of the individual incidents is not what the UFOologists claim it to be, but no significant coverage of the strung together incidents. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Big foot, Bermuda Triangle, 9-11 conspiracy theories, Birtherism, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Holocaust Denial etc... These are just a few of the articles on grossly fringe topics that we have on Wikipedia. For the record, I don't agree with the guidelines in WP:FRINGE. I think they are far too accommodating. But thems the rules until they aint. This subject is no more bizarre than the ones I just listed, and the article certainly cites RS sources. A casual glance at some of the above discussion strongly suggests that many are indeed WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. If those kind of votes were allowed this would be a strong delete from me. But they aren't. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep and remain vigilant about sourcing. Whether you believe in aliens or not, astronaut sightings of UFOs are a notable cultural phenom. Here are a few more good-looking sources: http://books.google.com/books?id=JOpq1LOGrr0C&pg=PA264, http://books.google.com/books?id=elTRUCZQWRcC&pg=PT60, http://debunker.com/texts/astronaut_ufo.html -- Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 20:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ Brainy J: You seem to be using a very broad definition for "good-looking source". The second one, "Aliens and Man: A Synopsis of Facts and Beliefs", looks totally loony - incoherent, with constantly changing font, layout, etc. The third link is dead and I can't even find the content on Wayback Machine. The first one seems reasonable, though. RockMagnetist ( talk) 01:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

"Aliens and Man" is published by Algora Publishing, which seems a reputable enough publisher, although I agree the formatting is strange. http://debunker.com/texts/astronaut_ufo.html is working fine for me.-- Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 13:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Brainy J: Well, regardless of the publisher, "Aliens and Man" is not a reliable source. But the third link works for me now - in fact, I had already added it to the article. I don't know why I couldn't access it earlier - maybe there was an attempted NASA coverup! RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 20:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge any 'notable' instances to List of reported UFO sightings. There may have been some notable instances but I'm not convinced that makes the topic notable in of itself. We have other places where the subject of alleged UFO sightings is addressed and to have an article dedicated to this particular facet would be overcoverage. Would also suggest protection since this is the third distinct page of its name which has been brought to AFD. -- W.  D.  Graham 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I think this article should be kept, basically because wikipedians have separated the other sightings into geographic locations (UFO sightings in China, sightings in Brazil, etc). There are a dozen or so like it. I think "outer space" is just another variant. But if this article ends up being merged, I think it might find a place as a subsection of UFO sightings in the United States. It's not technically in America, but the sightings are by Americans on American missions. :-) Bali88 ( talk) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep The POV here is sufficiently neutral. The correct meaning of NPOV (and ofr that matter, SPOV) is that an objective presentation of even the most folly-ridden subject will permit people to judge accurately. The FRINGE advice about sources is irrelevant here--when discussing a subject we need to use sources that cover them. If we limited ourself to serious sources, it would totally eliminate about 90% of our coverage on some forms of entertainment. This should never have been deleted--it was always fixable. I think this utter nonsense, but it's highly notable nonsense. We cover the world as people see it, including the idiocy. I'm not even going to attempt to list the subjects WP covers fully that I think idiocy; personal views about that are irrelevant to whether we should have an article. DGG ( talk )

there is no "if no reliable sources cover the subject we can use unreliable sources" exceptions to WP:RS and WP:V. that's just plain silly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As per good sense of DGG. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC). reply
• Keep - I have added some references in Further reading. One of them, Astronauts and UFOs: The whole story, is a reliable reference that should also put to rest the SYNTH argument. Indeed, there are several articles by Oberg that are reliable sources - and if you don't want to take my word for that, see what the NASA Lunar Science Interim director says here. RockMagnetist ( talk) 02:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment As an addendum to my Keep !vote above I will suggest that adding the word "Alleged" to the beginning of the title might be justified based on the extremely controversial nature of the subject. Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• UFO stands for unidentifed flying object, and it doesn't have to remain unidentified to qualify. I know there is a lot of confusion over the meaning of this term, but a clear definition in the lead can take care of that. RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Seconded. A lot of people use UFO and alien spacecraft as synonymous terms, which is incorrect. Now, some of the people interested in the topic may think aliens are involved, but that's not what a UFO is. I think "UFOs" that get later identified should be included in the article if they generated significant discussion and literary and news coverage. As long as there is a discussion of what it was identified to be. A definition of UFO in the lead is appropriate. Bali88 ( talk) 16:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• For the record, there's been a lot of talk about "serious sources" in this conversation, what exactly is a serious source? How does that differentiate from another type of source? Bali88 ( talk) 17:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • a clear example is [1] in the HuffPo's "Weird News", the section that features " Dumb Crime | Weird Sex | UFO | Conspiracy Theories | World Records | Bigfoot| Anatomical Wonders | Zombie Apocalypse | NSFW" is not a "serious source" - it is the equivalent of Weekly World News, without the benefit of being able to use it to line your birdcage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per DGG. Massively notable nonsense is still massively notable. We do cover pseudoscientific nonsense, provided it is done in a NPOV and serious fashion, and it is clearly covered as such. -- cyclopia ^speak! 15:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - For a clear statement of why there should be an article on this subject, here is a quote from James Oberg [2]:

While critics may attack the character or intelligence of many UFO witnesses, they cannot use these tactics on American and Russian space pilots. Where UFO photographs can be accused of distortion and forgery, photographs taken by astronauts and processed by NASA must be of the highest trustworthiness. Hence, most UFO scholars consider the family of astronaut UFO sightings to be one of the strongest bodies of evidence in the past thirty years.

Hence this is a far from arbitrary subset of all sightings. It is currently structured like a list, but as an article it could have a coherent discussion of the Condon Report, forgeries and hoaxes, allegations of cover-ups by the government, the environment in which sightings occur, and so on. RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Are there other reliable sources such as the Oberg one? I could be convinced to change my !vote to keep and rename " Meme of astronaut UFO sightings.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Could you explain the "meme" thing further. I'm not sure how it applies to this Bali88 ( talk) 02:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

"most UFO scholars consider the family of astronaut UFO sightings to be one of the strongest bodies of evidence in the past thirty years." the only thing connecting these individual hoaxes together is the push by ufololgists to attempt to give some type of credence to their fringe ideas. otherwise the topic/article is just WP:COATRACKING one discredited claim onto another without any reliable sources making the connection. the connection in the WP:GNG would be the reliable sources analyzing why these particular hoaxes have come into popularity as a meme. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Are there reliable sources identifying this as a meme? Otherwise, it seems like calling it that would be original work. Also, I don't think we need to keep looking at this as either it's scientifically credible or shouldn't exist on wikipedia. It's notable because it's something that people talk about widely, the same as why any band is notable or why any crime story is notable. I don't think anyone involved in this discussion actually believes there are alien spacecraft involved in the UFO sightings. We're voting based on the fact that it's a notable interest in popular culture. Bali88 ( talk) 16:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

From COATRACK: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject". This article is about UFO sightings in outer space, so any UFO sighting in outer space is not tangentially related. Note also that "a largely critical article about a subject that really is discredited is not covered by WP:COATRACK; see the policies laid out at WP:FRINGE for more information." That describes this article well. RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

it is stringing together and claiming as "unidentified" multiple events in which the objects have in fact been identified so even under that perspective it is coatracking. More debunked UFO claims this time with links to astronauts would also be appropriate title-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Even the top expert on the subject, Oberg, simply calls them UFO sightings. You seem to be worried that someone will come away with the wrong impression, but that won't happen if the article is written well. RockMagnetist ( talk) 00:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Since "Astronauts have reported anomalous and unexplained objects!" type junk news filler stories FAR exceed the number of objective scientific sources on the subject, I can understand the concerns that the article would quickly become a fringecruft magnet. Both how it's written and choice of title are key to avoiding the wrong impression. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I do share those concerns; but that is matter for the article's talk page, not here. In an AfD, we should remember that COATRACK is an essay, not a policy. The policy that coatrack articles violate is NPOV; but as pointed out in DISCUSSAFD, 'The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.' RockMagnetist ( talk) 02:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Haven't these phenomenon been discussed together in books, magazines, websites and tv shows? The fact that, however fringy, they have been discussed as a whole makes it a singular phenomena. Maybe one astronaut is debunking a singular incident that he himself was involved in, but this is not original work by a wiki editor. The wiki editor is discussing the work of others who discussed the collective sightings. Also, I don't think you're going there, but just to be clear, you're not saying this is coatracking because the title doesn't explicitly state that they have been debunked, right? It seems like your major beef with the article is that it doesn't say clearly enough that aliens don't really exist. If that's the case, we can work on the body of the article (the title should not contain that reference, btw) Bali88 ( talk) 00:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

the fact that fringe and non reliable sources have "linked" things together is not sufficient. WP:GNG requires RELIABLE sources to have covered the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

[3] and [4] mostly citing Oberg. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm adding them to the article as I find them. Two particularly good recent finds are the chapter on astronaut sightings in the Condon report and the bio of Armstrong by Hansen. Yet another article by Oberg, in The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters, is useful because it has an extensive list of sightings with a discussion of each one. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for all the work you're putting into this! Bali88 ( talk) 12:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Bali88: You're welcome. Sometimes I get involved in a deletion discussion and discover that there's a lot of good material out there. Finding it is much more satisfying than just saying "per DGG". RockMagnetist ( talk) 14:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you for adding sources to the article. I don't think it is helpful to make snarky remarks about other editors, it discourages them from taking part in Wikipedia. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC). reply

You're right, that wasn't appropriate. Sorry! RockMagnetist ( talk) 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Adding Sagan's Demon Haunted World to the reading list isn't so helpful, but replacing HuffPo, etc. in the text with academic sources would be great. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, Demon Haunted World has about a page on the Moon landing, but the web previews don't show the page numbers, so I just listed the whole book. It doesn't add much, but it's independent. RockMagnetist ( talk) 14:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge-I just don't think this is notable enough to be its own page. As stated above, the incidents listed could be moved to List of reported UFO sightings. PHENYLALANINE ( talk) 23:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

"Just don't think" isn't an argument. By the general notability guideline, the topic needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. SInce @ WDGraham proposed merging, several high quality sources have been added to the article, so there are no longer any grounds for saying it is not notable. RockMagnetist ( talk) 00:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The question is whether those sources address the topic itself, or just specific incidents. If they just cover specific incidents, then what establishes the need for this specific article to cover them, rather than putting them in an existing article. I'm not doubting that some notable sightings have occurred, I just think existing articles can cover this. -- W.  D.  Graham 10:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

@ WDGraham: It's strange to find this question posted directly above the answer. RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - In such a long discussion, important details can be overlooked, so I will summarize them here. There are now at least three reliable, independent sources that discuss UFO sightings by astronauts as a coherent subject. These are Astronauts and UFOs: The whole story by Oberg; the Condon report; and the bio of Armstrong by Hansen (they are all in Further reading). These put to rest the nominator's arguments for deletion - lack of notability and original research. I haven't seen any other arguments that are relevant to deletion. RockMagnetist ( talk) 06:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. This has happened twice now, for similar reasons. Looks like original reaearch. Nerd in Texas ( talk) 15:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Vandal sockpuppet account which has been indefinitely banned. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per DGG, specifically, "We cover the world as people see it, including the idiocy." There are no ghosts, but people see them; we cover them.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 03:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• keep meets WP:GNG, has no issues that would warrant deletion. this AfD is saturated with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid criteria for deletion. -- Aunva6 ^{talk - contribs} 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Covers two important topics:
  1. Initially unexplained visual phenomena in space flight (could be a move target? )
  2. The proposed mainstream explanation(s) for the phenomenon

The article does not cover

1. Fringe explanations for the phenomena
2. Media reaction
3. Conspiracy theory over the mainstream

If these were shown to be significant, then they could be included - but arguing for deletion on the basis of something not in the article is facile. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 15:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

• keep per WP:GNG, and because most arguments for deletion are "i don't like it" or reasons for cleanup, which AfD isn't. Diego ( talk) 17:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

"Delete and Salt: While the article stays purged of WP:FRINGE, it's essentially a WP:COATRACK of "stuff astronauts saw and remarked about." That's innocuous but not very encyclopedic -- we wouldn't have an article of "jokes told by astronauts." But of course it won't stay purged of WP:FRINGE stuff; it will be a magnet for speculation and synthesis and pseudoscience. Nothing is lost by dropping this trivia, and nothing is gained by keeping it. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

we wouldn't have an article of "jokes told by astronauts. - We would and we should, if it was a notable subject.-- cyclopia ^speak! 22:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

As I showed above, it's not a coatrack, and even if it were, that's rarely grounds for deletion. RockMagnetist ( talk) 00:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

For the record, wikipedia doesn't ban or even frown upon articles that contain fringe topics or pseudoscience. They are just as much a part of the human experience as anything else. If a topic is notable enough to be covered by newspapers, books, tv shows, etc, it's notable enough to be in wikipedia. Secondly, 'maybe someday the article might not fit within wikipedia guidelines because people might post stuff that is fringey and unscientific' isn't really a good argument to delete it. Any article could have crappy edits and if unhelpful edits are made, it takes like two clicks to put it back. It sounds like a variation of WP:Idontlikeit. Bali88 ( talk) 03:35, 16 May 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.