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. It seems clear now that sources, in English or Spanish, cannot be found. No sources, no notability. Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Canary Island UFO sighting[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

While this article claims that the subject is notable for four reasons, none of those reasons are actually relevant to the notability guidelines and policies we have for deciding when a subject deserves an article. I note that high quality independent discussion of this sighting does not seem forthcoming (compare to the Kenneth Arnold or Roswell). jps (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough, lack of reliable sources for this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close - notable UFO Sighting and the sources are reliable. 98.174.223.41 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources, notability. Why is this notable? Jim1138 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some UFOlogists attempting to tie together a bunch of disparate UFO claims with their own speculation. This particular topic not been picked up by any mainstream sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT, especially because there are no reliable sources discussing it. An alleged event near the Canary Islands in 1979 does appear to get some coverage, though: [1]. Location (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY WP:NEVENTS and WP:RS. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per each and every person above me, Not much needs saying since it's already been said. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails notability and events no secondary sources at all. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to question some of these delete votes as they are vague and are nothing more than "Not notable enough" without even an attempt to see if the event is notable (which it is just look it up on Google) or "delete because so and so user said so without giving a real reason for deletion". I even have to call into question to the entire AFD nomination as it is plainly a case of WP:DONTLIKEIT and possible WP:POINT violation. 98.174.223.41 (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you "look it up on Google" do you find reliable sources that provide the coverage to meet general or event notability guidelines? I didn't see that. It is bad form to question the motives and actions of other editors without providing evidence. It is also bad form to assert notability with "just look it up on Google" and not provide reliable sources. If it is a notable event it will have adequate coverage in multiple reliable sources, present them and the contentions of others will not hold weight in comparison. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statements such as "It is bad form to question the motives and actions of other editors without providing evidence" or "It is also bad form to assert notability with "just look it up on Google" and not provide reliable sources" furthers calls into question of the validity of this AFD since its obvious that the users who made this AFD either are too lazy to get reliable sources themselves or simply dont like the article.98.174.223.41 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@98.174.223.41: If you want to save the article, then you should find some reliable sources. Complaining that others could have done so, but haven't, isn't going save the article. It's going to get deleted if nobody finds more sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the AfD is based on the facts surrounding the article. I repeat it is not appropriate to make charges about the motivations of editors without evidence. It is not civil to describe editors as lazy. Rather than being impolite and making baseless assertions if you support keeping this article provide reliable sources that support notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 98.174.223.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be canvassing to attempt to dilute the consensus discussion (See actions from 20:43, 29 July 2014 forward). I am expressing no view on this AfD, but have added the notavote banner. Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to not have been a notable event, and lacks source depth as far as I'm concerned due to sources only being limited to forums and unreliable third-party sources. Noted recent attempts by the aforementioned IP to 'invite' users onto this discussion. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because this topic is not notable in English-speaking countries does not necessarily mean that it is not notable in Spanish-speaking countries. It is a well known fact that the English version of Wikipedia suffers from a systemic bias which discriminates against underrepresented cultures and topics. The vast majority of Canarian people speak Spanish. Has anyone checked for Spanish sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are sources in Spanish that could support this, perhaps the article should be created on the Spanish language wikipedia and not the English language wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't (or at least, shouldn't) discriminate against Spanish-speaking cultures. Requiring English-only sources leads to an imbalanced coverage of subjects on the English Wikipedia and denies English Wikipedia readers from the opportunity of learning about other cultures. Indeed, Wikipedia:Systemic bias specifically states that this bias is manifested in deletions to articles. Plainly speaking, we should NOT be deleting articles unless we know for sure that the topic isn't notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources in other languages that support notability they can certainly be used as argument in this AfD and used to improve the article. There are issues on English WP with US and English language centrism. As noted below however, the Spanish WP article is lacking sourcing and has not produced sources over a five year period. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable. United States Man (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources are reliable, just because some sources are not part of the mainstream does not make it a fringe source, besides what defines a fringe source is subjective and frankly that WP:FRIND policy is flawed , redundant , too broad, is being misued and abused by users who simply don't like the articles or too lazy to find additional sources and the list goes on and on. 68.106.152.102 (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with a policy the place to discuss that is the talk page of the policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I did a google search myself and found 19,000 results regarding sighting plus, the users who made this AFD for some strange reason, ignored the two sources in the article, both of which are government sources which leads me to believe that this AFD is uncalled for and as the other user stated that whoever issued an AFD on this article simply did not like the article.68.106.152.102 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GHITS is not a valid argument for notability. The two sources in the article are primary. Significant coverage in secondary sources is required for notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Query: I am concerned that this IP user seems so very similar to 98.174.223.41 in 1) geography, 2) content interests, 3) positions taken in this discussion. WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT may apply, but I don't think an WP:SPI is likely appropriate as we can all see WP:DUCKs for ourselves. jps (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer Please defer closing this AfD until after we can figure out whether or not there are reliable sources in Spanish. It doesn't appear as if the OP performed WP:BEFORE and I am attempting to find non-English sources but I do NOT speak Spanish. In fact, I'm not even sure what the Spanish term for "UFO" is. I've reached out for help at the Language Reference Desk.[2] Please allow me some time to figure out what good search terms are in Spanish and conduct a search. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above Comment - In Spanish WP they have been looking for sources since August 2009 (justo 5 añitos :) and they have not been able to find any. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability and verifiability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite input from several editors interested in keeping this article, no additional sources have been provided. As mentioned the Spanish WP does not have sources to add. The existing sources do not amount to significant secondary coverage. See WP:EVENT. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 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.