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 know this close is difficult, so let me outline why I decided to close it as "no censensus". Numerical it's 12 deletes vs. 7 keeps, but with various "per noms" or "per policy XY" votes, those numbers are not as convincing as one might think.

What I think can be said is that both delete- and keep-!votes agree on that this article is a mess with much speculation. The problem is, how to deal with it. First group advocates deletion based on the fact that they think it cannot be salvaged into an article compliant with WP:FRINGE and other related theories. The latter group thinks that this is in fact possible and that the sources in the article are enough to establish notability of such alleged encounters. Both groups make good points and I can't see any reasoning to be really "win" this debate. So, as the article already exists, this close will essentially default to a "keep". But this is only a view of the consensus at the current moment. If the keep-!voters are not providing the cleanup they think possible, consensus might easily change to delete this in a new AfD. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged UFO-related entities[edit]

List of alleged UFO-related entities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not encyclopedic in the least. Also, no standard for inclusion can be agreed upon. Are human beings UFO-related? How about cattle? God? Ghosts? Lightning bugs? Where do you draw the line? Answer: at deletion! See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UFO-related entities and the previous gem Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related vehicles. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Yeesh! What a mess! The most dubious of hypothetical creatures being presented as known facts, even to the point of listing their planet of origin, and then haphazardly organized into tables. I think I need a hat made of tinfoil to prevent this dreck from turning my brain into greyish-red puree. Reyk _YO! 05:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these "creatures" are being asserted as fact. The facts are that they have allegedly been seen and that ufological explanations for the sightings are popular in some circles. Sometimes origins have for the entities have been reported. That's all the article claimed. Alleged is even in the article title, weren't you paying attention? Abyssal (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Pointless article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete — definitely indisrcriminate. MuZemike (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I can confirm that most of these events are true. But seriously, this "article" has lots of sources and seems very interesting. There are lots of UFO enthusiasts. So I'm sure they will be happy to find this catalog of notable and well documented encounters. Thankfully it doesn't go into any detail about anal probing. I'll admit there seems to be a bit of original research involved, so perhaps it needs modification. I recommend contacting Area 51 for consultation with the experts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can put the notable "encounters" in List of UFO sightings. This is not about "encounters", it's about "alleged UFO-related entities". ScienceApologist (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. This article is about the entities themselves. It needs work. But I still think it's a keeper. We have to know what we're up against... ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, now that I think of it, should someone make a hard copy of this information? We don't know what kind of computer interfering technologies these beings possess. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails inclusion criteria. Verbal chat 10:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Allegedly delete - Unverifiable and indiscriminate. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That these entities have been allegedly seen and that ufological explanations for their origin are popular in some circles is easily verifiable. And to say that the list is indiscriminate is not necessarily true either. Common sense should be used with additions and Wikipedians are generally trustworthy on that count. Abyssal (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, the only way I think this could be salvaged is by beefing it out with detail on how much of this stuff has been shown to be groundless nonsense, but then again... Delete Mangoe (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include a bit about the skeptical perspectives on the entities I don't see why not, but are you suggesting we should delete the article because it needs that but you're too lazy to assist in adding it? You'd rather screw over the Wikipedians who have worked on it rather than to assist in fixing it? Abyssal (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. The list is useful, but cluttered with claims dubious even by UFO standards. That alone is not sufficient to delete the entire article. Claims that the list is indiscriminate are mere cynicism. It's true that just about everything has been said to be UFO related by somone, but common sense application of notability policy can filter the wheat of popular, long lasting perceived associations between UFOs and list entries from the chaff of claims of individual cranks. In the long run Wikipedians will sort through this easily it's a bit cynical to delete the whole article because you doubt this. No compelling reason for deletion has been given. Abyssal (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant with our existing, extensive coverage of UFO minutia; original research by synthesis; list criteria (whatever that is) not supported by reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list is no more redundant given other UFO coverage than the List of US presidents s given Wiki's coverage of politics and history. "Original research by synthesis" is an oxymoron. If you're only synthesizing the ideas of others you're by definition not coming up with your own ideas. List entries are easily supported by reliable references. It's not hard to source the statement "some people have speculated that Chupacabras were dropped off by UFOs" or something similar. Abyssal (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wiki-speak. About original research by synthesis, see WP:SYNTH. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "synthesizing" inherant in compiling the list is not aimed at advancing any position, so that policy (that I was unaware of, sorry) still wouldn't apply. Abyssal (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - After reconsideration, the biggest problem is this word "related". Where is United States Air Force? Or optical illusion? Or J. Allen Hynek? At the very least there needs to be a name for the class of things listed. That there isn't suggests that it isn't a well-defined class. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Airforce and Optical illusion are not entities in the sense the title meant. J Allen Hynek was never said to originate from a UFO. Abyssal (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Abyssals arguments and I'm happy to see this article has a strong advocate. I've thought about it quite a bit, and it's just an interesting article (almost as good as Sideways bike also up for deletion recently). Even the table format (which is very unusual) seems rather suited to presenting the information. If someone wants to add refuting evidence of the contacts with these beings, or sourced refutations of the beings existence then they should do so appropriately in the article. That would make it even better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the title doesn't say that. The air force is an "entity related to UFOs"; therefore the title is ill-formed. OK, so what should it be? Well, if you can come up with an accurate, descriptive title, then you would have a point. But if you cannot, it means that the category itself is ill-formed. Maybe if it were renamed List of purported alien beings, it would be more accurately defined. Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though I'm not sure just what the title should be. Possibly beings, not entities--Notable and encyclopedic. Personally, I think every individual one of them entirely non-existent, and the list to be a list of an idiotic mix of fantasy and self delusion; & I think my view to be at least the very solid scientific and more general academic consensus. What the popular consensus may be is another matter entirely, and is a discouraging matter to contemplate. (Yes, i do have a definite POV about UFOs and associated things.) Notable then as popular concepts, and it is a very useful Encyclopedic function to bring them together. If anything, doing so supports, not opposes, the SPOV--I'd think any even partially rational person who might nonetheless think some one of them possible might well have second thoughts upon seeing the list. But what people make of it is up to them. We don't tell them what to think. If they should think, what a wonderful diversity of things in the universe, that's not our fault. The articles on the various ones present what evidence, positive and negative, there is. I don't think it helpful to conceal this stuff, or de-emphasise it. It is not the SPOV to deny or de--emphasize or hide the existence of irrationality, or pretend the widespread acceptance of nonsense will go away if we don't talk about it. How can anyone who actually posseses a SPOV have any lack of confidence is what neutral presentation about UFOs will demonstrate? DGG (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I put a notice on the Cryptozoology project and Paranormal project discussion pages. Earlier I also mentioned the AfD on the UFO discussion page. I thought the people working on similar articles should have an opportunity to weigh in and assess the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of inclusion criteria backed by reliable sources. A historical analysis of trends in reported characteristics might make an interesting sociology essay, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of these reports is easily verifiable. Why does everyone keep saying this? Abyssal (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The arguments for deletion seem to be two-fold: 1) the article is bogus and 2) it needs references. In regard to the first issue, any editor is welcome to add referenced content debunking or disputing the existence of the alleged entities. And secondly, a lack of references is due cause for a references needed tag, not for wholesale deletion. And finally I would note that the article has 12 references to articles from various well regarded newspapers and magazines. This decisively establishes the notability of the topic and the need for inclusion of this subject in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Rest assured this comment has not been influenced by any otherworldly influences, that I know of. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with midnight here. The arguments put forward in favor of deletion are either bunk or an incitement for clean up. No good reasons to delete (a drastic course of action) have been given yet. Abyssal (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that this is an accurate and complete assessment of the arguments put forth for deletion. Whether or not these entities exist is, I agree, irrelevant to this discussion, though of course it remains relevant to presentation of the article. The lack of referencing issue is based on the original synthesis policy - what makes these items notable as this list? The good faith argument is made that such sources do not exist, not merely that they are not presented. More specific discussion of list articles and when we should and should not create them is outlined at WP:SALAT. The policy being implied by the nominator is, I believe, the indiscriminate collection of information section of What Wikipedia is not. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to answer "what makes these items notable as this list?" What makes a list of US presidents notable "as a list"? A grouping of closely related and notable ideas naturally deserve a list, I think. And that's what these are. I don't know what you want me to say about it.

I don't doubt that the argument that the list is unsourcable was advanced in good faith, its just that the argument is nonsense. Pure and simple. Is it really a stretch to believe that paranormal researcers have suggested that the Chupacabra may be an escaped alien pet brought here on a UFO? I've seen a dozen or so TV paranormal shows and everytime the Chupacabra comes up that hypothesis is mentioned.

And what about the list is indiscriminate? All entries have had specific, deep ties to the UFO phenomenon alleged for them. The list is even broken down into very specific categories of connections (entities reported in abduction scenarios, ce-3 entities, etc). It's hard to call the list indiscriminate. Abyssal (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix it. Being a mess and unsources are reasons to tag, or better yet, fix. The subject matter itself is notable, even if a bit "unusual" (or crazy). It is absolutely verifiable as plenty of newspapers love to write about this stuff, which itself demonstrates notability. I'm not a fan of the word "entities" in the title, but that is a matter for the article talk page or a bold editor. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsalvageable unsourced speculation. — BillC ^talk 08:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I see 12 inline citations. Did you mean that it needs ((refimprove))? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I mean that the material—the theme, if you like—of this article is beyond salvage. To start at the beginning, the very first item in the tables is: Feline humanoid, origin: Sirius; temperament: benevolent; description: feline-like humanoid. Do we have a citation for feline humanoids coming from Sirius? more importantly, could such a citation exist? We are spared a drawing in the last column, but what are such drawings other than someone's fanciful artwork? The tables continue in the same vein for dozens of entries. Energy beings were a creation of Star Trek. The article on the Flatwoods monster doesn't even support the "temperament: possibly aggressive" label. Material like this just doesn't belong in a serious encyclopaedia. — BillC ^talk 23:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually I consider the "theme" as the topic itself, thus the confusion. I think the concept of the article (if we started with a blank page) *is* notable. If you agree, then it is just an issue of editing, not deleting. Some of the content is sourced. Other parts are sourceable, but not sourced. The other stuff can be deleted. In other words, I agree there is lots of junk in the article, but it can be fixed by doing something other than a delete. I think deleting when it can instead be trimmed with a hatchet (or chainsaw) is just a waste. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment that the "theme" of the article is beyond salvage is simply IWISHTHISDIDNTEXIST. We do not need sourcing to show that the feline humanoids come from Sirius. We just need to show that such has been published, and there is sufficient information for that and for all the other ridiculous entries here. Notable nonsense is notable, and the arguments here that it's all utter nonsense are -- while perfectly correct statements of the real world status of these suppositions-- simply not relevant. DGG (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be notable, notable nonsense must be documented in third-party sources. Can you point to a third-party source which verifies the contention that people believe feline humanoids come from Sirius? Can you find anything other than the ramblings of UFO-believers that indicate some notoriety for this point-of-view? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA, a third party source in this context is anything published by other than the alleged being. This is not a list of organisations that promote the idea that there are such beings-- (though, come to think of it, that might be a pretty good list also; certainly there have been accounts of such groups emanating from other sources, such as those who think they're ridiculous). DGG (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? We have WP:FRINGE for a reason. You may not like it, but that's not a reason to ignore it. This is a fringe theory. In order for it to be included on Wikipedia we need documentation by people who don't believe in the fringe theory that the idea exists. We don't have that. Therefore, Wikipedia does not deserve to have this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete vague and pointless with a vague and pointless title. Unmaintainable list- anything could be vaguely related to UFOs. Sticky Parkin 12:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve/clean up - My thanks to DGG for articulating at some length the crucial philosphical rationale for keeping articles like this, rather than attempting to exterminate them from Wikipedia. Of course it's lamentable that there are all too many credulous people whose ignorance of the scientific method predisposes them to believing in nonsense -- some of whom have reached the highest levels in government. What I find truly discouraging is the efforts by some Wiki editors to suppress information on notable subjects simply because they have what I would call an allergic reaction to those subjects -- an extreme case of WP:ITBOTHERSME. That said, there are some glaring flaws in this article that need to be dealt with. I would start by completely removing the column labeled "Temperament", which I think lends an air of silliness to the whole thing. Framing the contents of the entries in terms of "alleged" or "described as", etc. would go a long way toward presenting the info in a more neutral way. Example: The Hopkinsville goblin -- should say "Allegedly sighted near the Kentucky towns of Kelly and Hopkinsville". Cgingold (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE outlines what nutty ideas are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. This particular collection of nutty ideas is not referenced to non-believers, therefore it cannot be sustained by Wikipedia -- there is no way to write a WP:NPOV article if the only sources that exist discussing bunk are credulous. In any case, there is no argument that can be made for this subject being notable if the only sources which discuss it are those of true believers. That's what you're missing. If you would prefer a different, less exacting and non-WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, try wikinfo. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FRINGE - A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. The Washington Post seems to qualify. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that article serious? It seems firmly tongue-in-cheek to me. Whatever the case, the article is referencing the following to it:

1. Nordic aliens come (or allegedly come) from Venus and/or the Pleiades ("and/or" ?)
2. Nordic aliens are abducting entities.
3. Nordic aliens have "various" origins.

Not one of these statements is supported by the Washington Post article.

The "Get a Piece of the Rock" LA Weekly link is dead. — BillC ^talk 02:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA Weekly link is fixed. Everyone here already knows the article has problems. This just isn't the issue at hand. The purpose of the AFD isn't to argue content, it is to establish if the subject matter passes one of the criteria for inclusion. Debating the content is for the talk page of the article, or better yet, fix it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve/clean up per DGG. Also, possibly rename to something like List of extraterrestrial types in Ufology. Per SciAp's question, I say we draw the line at beings which are purely advocated within the context of Ufology (i.e. no cows, whose existence is also attested by a number of respected agricultural universities).--Pharos (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How can a respectful encyclopaedia have such an article? It's a mess from start to finish! And unless these creatures can be proven, the article should at least clearly state that these creatures are fiction or theories not yet proved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyC (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? The article is called "List of ALLEGED UFO-related entities." You're willing to tear down other peoples' work when you didn't even bother to read the title? Abyssal (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable nonsense "speculation" plenty of RS's on the variety of space aliens vacationing on Earth, e.g. the Wash Post article. This is essentially a classification of some fictional archetypes, all that is different is that the primary works of fiction do not label themselves that way. If they did, and there were the same amount of outside notice and appropriate RS's (e.g. skeptical magaznies), would there be any doubt that this is a normal, encyclopedic topic?John Z (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2008 (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.