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 merge to List of reported UFO sightings. With a nod to WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arequipa UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

(1) article relates as fact a single-person tale of a sighting; (2) no reliable sources cited nor can reliable sources be found; (3) the tale has extremely limited exposure in reports/publications and has not been the subject of scrutiny in any balanced publication (one and only published source is by publisher of UFO Magazine with obvious conflict of interest); (4) no commentary addressing question of whether this may or may not be a hoax has been written/sourceable, thus this material is completely unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, being simply one person's tale (note (a) the reference to 1,800 ground staff seeing something not backed up by one single identified person's account (b) pilot reported to describe top of object as white in one report and blue in another). In summary, this is appalling trash and tends to bring WP into disrepute. Sirlanz 00:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems this is perhaps the only "UFO incident" in which there is a claim for shots fired. There is some LASTING coverage - Peruvian Jet Pilot Tells of Tangle With UFO (+Photos), Epoch Times, The only man to ever shoot at a UFO, news.com.au - and there probably are some more in Spanish. The article should be cleaned up so it doesn't relate to anything UFO-like as fact in wiki's voice.Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no mention of anyone else encountering the object. Being featured on the "History" channel is hardly an endorsement. A suspicious person might wonder if there was a need to explain expending 64 rounds of ammunition.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The amazing thing is that it worked. The pilot went on to serve another 25 years and made colonel. Seeems this is not a bad excuse.Icewhiz (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough sources that are objectively Independent of belief in UFOs (e.g. the Epoch Times is not a WP:RS), or WP:SENSATIONalized tabloid accounts, to rate a stand alone article. Could be a mention in List of UFO sightings if apropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per mostly LuckyLouie, whose actual investigation of both the content and context of sources is more needed in AFD discussions. Lasting significance cannot be prescribed to sensationalized accounts but rather multiple examples of WP:RS.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of reported UFO sightings - worthy of inclusion there (using the news.com.au source for ref?), which suprisingly it isn't already, but not for a stand-alone article unless additional reliable sources are found. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources--though I think Bushranger's merge recommendation may have merit, especially given Icewhiz's observation that this "sighting" is a little unique in the particulars. Certainly this topic doesn't pass muster for an independent article under GNG, though. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: bad deletion sorting – not an astronomy article. Praemonitus (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to List of UFO sightings, given the sources from Icewhiz, we can work it out without deletion. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2017 (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.