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 due to apparent puppetry and per established users - NYC JD (make a motion) 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing UFO Research Organization[edit]

Beijing UFO Research Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No notability references. Ideogram 07:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete changing !vote - see at the bottom I vaguely remember stumbling upon a similar page once, but cannot find it in my contribs now... I am inclined to believe that it was the same organisation, so this would seem to me the article's a recreation (can't back this up with a link to a log/diffs now though). It didn't seem notable back then either. The website listed in the article doesn't answer. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is run by the Chinese Government (Beijing Association For Science and Technology). Its members all come from different government and university institutes (they don't just pick random people, you have the match a criterea and be qualified). What links do you want? The website has all the links and data, and it is branched on a server of the Chinese government. I do not know who created this similar article you talk about in the past but they made their mistakes by not providing you with factual data, and it has been provided, just look at the links for one. (:O) If you are unable to read Chinese, may I suggest Google or babelfish translator? (:O) -nima baghaei 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, I just posted a reference, Time Magazine (:O) -nima baghaei 14:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, that reference does not appear to be about the orgainzation in question, just a brief mention of the name in referring to somebody who works there. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete TIME article says that "China UFO Research Center" broke up into "competing factions three years ago". It is not clear if the subject of article (Research Organization) is that described in TIME. I do not believe that any of the organizations are "run" by PRC government- tolerated perhaps and maybe including some former government officials/scientist in administrative roles. The yahoo email address and blank page for forum also makes me suspicious to the claims. Doesn't look notable. D Mac Con Uladh 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was and still is government sponsored, look at their homepage and its mother server, and they have all the data on their homepage, once again if you cannot read Chinese, stop jumping to conclusions and translate it: Google or babelfish (:O) -nima baghaei 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd do it, but I cannot access the server (timeout), but it'd probably be fun since Babel Fish translations usually come out weird. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just tried it using Google translation, it seems to work fine (:O), try Google -nima baghaei 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the direct translation link (:O) -nima baghaei 17:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading and pondering, but for the moment my opinion from up top still stands, something seems fishy. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish I could help cleanse that fishyness from your mind, but I dont understand what is causing the fishyness (:O( -nima baghaei 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't put my finger on it - I vaguely seem to remember a similar article on Wikipedia, on an organisation resembling this one, maybe even the same one - didn't seem notable back then. I know you have provided references, but am still not sure. If these guys are notable, it's still vague to me. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an official government agency/organization which has been noted in Time Magazine. I'm sure there are many more Chinese-language sources on this topic. If such sources (even Chinese-language ones) are added, I think that should put notability concerns to rest. I think this article should have been tagged with ((notability)) rather than deletion. -- Black Falcon 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why would this article be deleted??? It just introduces BUFO based on the organization's site( which is legit because it's with B.A.S.T.) -Ssjcloud 20:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's only contributions are here. --Ideogram 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nima baghaei. CuriousGiselle 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has less than fifty contributions, and the last were in December. --Ideogram 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please note that this is not a vote. The closing admin will weigh the arguments advanced by both sides, not simply count votes. Simply saying you agree with someone without adding to the discussion will have no effect. --Ideogram 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One ref does not make this org notable. Annoying commentary by nima baghaei and so many single-use socky /meaty accounts getting involved. Reinforces that this should be removed. - WeniWidiWiki 05:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, it is an official Chinese government website and branch, take a look at the data if you have not, why do you say such negative comments (:O( ... love (:O) and their comments are their opinions and thoughts on the subject at hand, you have to actually look at the data on their homepage (if you need to translate it b/c you are unable to read chinese, may i suggest this ... link)and on the reference ... it is these data that should decide its case, not what others have said that may not seem agreeable with you (:O) -nima baghaei 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just because the the orginization is not well known does not mean its contributions to UFOlogy are unimportant. WIthin a month or so, with a little work, I think this could be a good article Almighty Rajah 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I just added more references! (:O) -nima baghaei 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep on its merits, irrelevant of who is the author or defenders. The organization is real, it is sufficiently independent to be worth an article of its own, governments do for various reasons investigate UFOs, though I personally do not se why. (I was asked to make a comment here, but I had earlier made a comment on the talk page of the article, so I do not consider it canvassing.) DGG 03:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your comments address Wikipedia policy on notability. --Ideogram 04:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is an official Chinese government website and branch if yah have not gotten the chance, take a look at the data and references and if anyone is unable to read their homepage because they cannot read Chinese, may I suggest google translator link (:O) -nima baghaei 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no question that we should keep this. Any articles can be improved upon in time, if this is the issue that some people have. This Chinese organization is a real organization, and just some made-up name. Deleting it would be a like censorship. Why deprive wikipedia readers of valid information? --Pierre2012 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - None of the people saying keep seem to understand Wikipedia notability policy. --Ideogram 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And how about yourself? Once again, it is an official Chinese government website and branch, take a look at the data and references if you have not and if anyone is unable to read their homepage because they cannot read Chinese, may I suggest google translator link (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, I do believe I do understand Wikipedia notability policy. Why don't you try explaining Wikipedia notability policy here, for the benefit of all those voting keep? Quotes from Wikipedia:Notability would help. --Ideogram 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gladly friend (:O) ... Non-triviality - the website, the data on it, the references (note: it is a branch and it is branched on the government's Beijing website) ... Independence - I am not advertising, why would I advertise a government agency (they wont make any money off because its government sponsored) ... published works - References from Time Magazine, Shanghai Star, Xinhuanet, and People's Daily (just to name a few) ... Reliable - the links to the data have been provided in the article ... Verifiable Article - yup I have shown with all the links that it is verifiable (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to explain Wikipedia notabiliy policy to those voting keep, not to explain how this article satisfies it. In particular, why don't your rate how each of the keep votes addresses the primary notability criterion, namely, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". --Ideogram 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This article should be kept and I have explained why, I am not sure what the issue is here (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is a lot of the keep voters are saying irrelevant things and so their votes are meaningless. --Ideogram 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought their input was wonderful, and many had good thought to their reasoning. Even those who said delete said irrelevant things yet I loved the input they gave. It just gave more thought to this debate (:O) Yet I never claimed the votes of the delete or keep from anyone to be meaningless ... on the contrary they all count in my eyes and people did a wonderful job helping contribute to Wikipedia, even if they are new and still learning (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you please use the preview button to avoid cluttering up the change history. --Ideogram 00:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reference list deleted, it belongs on the article.)

• Sorry I didnt know it didnt not belong here, sorry bout that, but why was it removed right now and not earlier? (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I just got around to it. --Ideogram 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, ok cool. Well if anyone wants to see seven references, please go here (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepMove to Chinese Wiki/Neutral for now, I say give it a chance to be expanded. The article has indeed established notability as per WP:NOTABILITY and it satisfies WP:VER. It has more than one third party source on the subject. The issue is not as much notability as it is content. I think the article deserves a chance to be expanded before it gets the chop. Also, it appears there is a lot of actions on this page in violation of WP:BITE, please keep it civil and don't bite the newcomers. After looking at these sources they are in Chinese, perhaps this article is better suited on the Chinese Wikipedia if that is an option, as it does have reputable outside sources, but they are not in English. Also, it lacks content and if it is to be kept on any Wiki it needs a mass expansion other than see the homepage.Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete It doesn't meet the criteria for notability.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sorry, Nima Baghaei, but this article just is not notable. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia. All of the 'sources' for the article are in Chinese, or question mark language as they would originally appear on Firefox. Also, the article barely has content. There are a few promising sections, but all the article says about them is to visit the main site (which could be used as a source for future reference), instead of giving information right there, like you're supposed to find in an encyclopedia. Nima Baghaei, you asked me to help...unfortunately I don't think it's in the way you wish, and I'm sorry. This article simply isn't notable. If it went under a miracle of a clean-up...maybe. But right now, there is just no way. Ganfon 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. User:Nima_Baghaei has canvassed about 15 talk pages with links to this debate. In addition, his message slanders User:Ideogram. Quite frankly, this behavior is pretty disturbing and I think it should stop. Link – Lantoka (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my stance from up top to conditional week keep. I have just now given this thing some thought. This discussion had grown quite substantially over the past few days (evidence suggests that this is thanks to Nima's actions, but I guess if the article'd be placed on some List of UFO-related deletions then the situation'd be similar), and maybe there is something to it. My suggestion is to keep the article for now, however on conditions that Nima provides sources, be they Chinese or English, and expands the article so that it is something more than just a list of names and links. Lists to prose. Let's wait it out, give it a few months, and watch. If the article does not grow, let's come back to it in a few months and discuss it again. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Im in the minority with that choice, but why cant this article just be expanded. If its that well known and documented whats stopping someone writing more info about it. I have to say in the way it stands, its just a list of various pieces of data, but if someone could put some more meat on the bones it could be a worthy article. --PrincessBrat 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am assuming that references were added after the afd nom. I see references and as far as I know it passes wikipedias notability guidelines. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I made a snap decision and upon further review, I think it fails wikipedias notability guidelines. I looked at the sources in english and the references I found do not reinforce notability for me. [1] is about somebody who works there, but the article is not about the organization. [2] is the same story, the article is not about the organization in reference. This leads me to believe that most of the articles are probably mostly related to the UFO Phenomenon with a brief mention of this organization. I dont think that this meets notability standars because it is not the subject of the third party trivial sources.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Nima. Meets required guidelines. BUDSMR 00:53, 25 February 2007 (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.