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 redirect to List_of_UFO_sightings#20th_century. I acknowledge that there is a dissenting view, but there is a clear consensus of participants who feel this is not appropriate as a standalone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter[edit]

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

We evaluated this article quite a bit on the WP:FTN page and the consensus is that the sources are all WP:PRIMARY or otherwise problematic from a WP:FRIND perspective. The issue here seems to be that there isn't a lot of independent sourcing that has gone on. The Ufology community discusses this incident with bated breath, but they have failed to convince any other external sources to take their claims seriously, apparently. Even the claims of mainstream notice made in the article have not borne fruit. A possible mention at List of UFO sightings might be okay, but redirecting to that page from the name of this article which is rather artificial (note the capitalized "Encounter" in violation of WP:MOS). jps (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per proposal. The coverage in RS is minimal to say the least. A mention at the List article is about all this is due. Is there any RS that supports notability that is not currently in the article? The article is well crafted so if additional sources to support it can be found I would reconsider.
Comment I would not object to a move to comply with MOS even if it means my above comment would be lost and this discussion reopened. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of UFO sightings. While Torres claims were oft repeated by the press as slow news day filler, the alleged "government cover up" is only UFOlogists anxious speculations. What we have left is one of many "false target" incidents common during the early days of radar and a pilot convinced it was something mysterious. [1] (A bit of fun trivia for those interested: pilots were warned not to talk about such incidents mainly so that Cold War foes would not learn of the numerous quirks, bugs, capabilities and limitations of US radar systems, not because of any "UFO" cover up.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This incident is already listed in List of UFO sightings, therefore, redirect would not be a favor/blessing/grace. Considering that the lead of List of UFO sightings reads as "..including supposed cases of reported close encounters and abductions", there is no irrationality here to include such cases in that list. Regarding the authenticity remarks: are we here to probe the articles with respect to wikipedia policies and guidelines, or to refute/debunk such sightings/encounters. Logos5557 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Close I have to question this AFD nomination since its smells of WP:DONTLIKEIT not to mention that the WP:FRIND policy has problems in and of itself and is likely being abused by users who simply wanted to debunk UFO sightings and ufology encounters which is a blatant violation of WP:POINT.98.174.223.41 (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not object to a brief mention within List of UFO sightings, however, there is insufficient material in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG criteria for a stand alone article. I have no strong objections for a redirect, but I'm not sure that it is warranted as a likely search term. Location (talk) 02:58, 1 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is spectacularly unimportant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not believe in UFOs, but this has the feel of being one of the classic cases that will be put forward by believers. My concern is that all the sources appear to be from 2008, precisly 50 years after the alleged event. A lot of journalists wrote up a story in 2008. Was this all based ona single press release from a UFO advocate? If so, did he have a good source? At some point all UFO records were declassified. If there was a contemporary report (even classified at the time), it should be possible to identify the report and cite it directly from a source in The National Archives or the American equivalent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have gleaned from the two news reports I have found: [2][3]. In 1988, a UFO buff asks Torres if he ever saw a UFO and Torres tells him he saw a UFO in 1957. UFO buff asks Torres to write-up his account and sends it in a letter to the Ministry of Defense asking for an explanation. In October 2008, the letter and attachment are declassified and among those UFO files released as the UK Archives cleans house.[4] I'm not sure whether Torres or some other UFO buff is behind the press releases, but whatever hullabaloo exists hinges on the UFO buff's letter of inquiry with the attachment written by Torres. As far as I can tell, there is no other primary source documentation to support that Torres reported a UFO back in 1957 or that any government agency investigated the claim in 1957 or 1988 or at any other time. No one else has taken it seriously either, which explains why there is not enough reliable secondary source material to establish notability for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 20:09, 5 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.