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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic aliens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This isn't notable, and isn't verifiable. The source used only mentions the "aliens" in passing. Philosophus ^T 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I read the one "source" and agree with nom. Perhaps this could go in an article about the guy who came up with this, but certainly no proof it's notable enough for its own article. Someguy1221 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Pretty notable alien "subtype" in ufology. Artw 05:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... looks like the article has been pretty heavily trimmed in the recent past. Artw 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparently, same people believe that some kind of little green men are in fact not green but look like Nordic people, e.g. [1]; whether such aliens exist is irrelevant, as the article is about the belief, not the aliens. The article has two references, so I'd say we should keep it. Tizio 11:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. But can you find a reliable and notable source explaining this? The site you linked to discusses these actually goes to the length of discussing details of their physiology and their homeworlds. Someguy1221 11:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I provided the link as an example, not a reference (there are a lot of web pages like this around). These links [2][3] are the first I could find from a skeptic point of view. They somehow prove that someone who is not an ufologist reported the existence of this belief. Tizio 11:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article has citation, is a paranormal article, and has the potential to grow (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this looks like a valid stub. As long as it continues to follow reasonable demands for paranormal subjects (admittedly, I don't know them), it can grow, with sources - it already has some. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an important alien sub-group from before the rise of the greys. It does need expanding though. (Emperor 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep I've been a fan of ufology (which I consider akin to mythology, urban legends, etc...) since I was a kid. I've known of this particular alien species for a long time due to television documentaries, so I know the belief in them does exist and wasn't simply created by some Wikipedian user. As noted above, this is about the belief of the aliens existence and not the aliens themselves and the Washington Post reference along with the further reading book and links provided by Tizio seem sufficient enough. Poetic^X_contribs 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, I would like to note that the article was severely trimmed, as mentioned by Artw, just a day before being put up as AfD. This has caused the article to become a stub. I feel Wikipedians should have proper time to evaluate the trimming, look through the sources of the trimmed material (to ensure whether or not the trimming was needed), and have time to add new referenced material to make up for the trimming before any decision can be made in terms of deletion. Poetic^X_contribs 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Another notable idiocy, no less notable than the others. The best source of information seems to be the website http://aliens.monstrous.com/nordics.htm which I located in a earlier version. But otherwise the present state of the article seems reasonable. . DGG 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a notable concept within the field of ufology. Although the similarities between this and Space Brothers may be a concern. They are very similar concepts, aren't they? hombre de haha 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: space brothers describes a class of alien rather than a species of alien. The way that they they are said to have made contact is what defines a space brother, rather than just what species they are said to be. - perfectblue 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you. Btw, Thanks for the sources provided below. hombre de haha 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this was the main subject of several books, but interest fell away long before the internet was even dreamed of. All it needs is a proper writeup. It doesn't matter if there are Nordic Aliens or not, just that the subject is notable and properly referenced. Totnesmartin 17:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: To say that this is not notable not only shows a complete ignorance of the history of ufology and contactees, but also an unbelievable American Bias. While 75 percent of US alien claims are based around Greys, In Europe Naudic clams outnumber them significantly, especially in places like the UK which have a strong Celtic history (Greys make up only 20% of European reports and 13% of UK reports).^[1] Nordic reports were around before before Betty and Barny Hill make abductions part of US popular culture. They were said to have brought alternate philosophies to the people whom they contacted and to have warned that humans were on the path to self destruction (often an anti-cold war message), rather than spending their time giving rectal probes to drunken rednecks. There were even cults dedicated to them in Europe throughout the 50-70s.

I will readily admit that I know nothing of the subjects, but the AfD wasn't due to any bias; rather, it was due to my style of AfDing, and the articles state at the time of the AfDing. In my experience, for articles like this, where it is difficult to find reliable sources on the internet due to a low signal-to-noise ratio, and most non-internet sources may be not easily apparent, putting up an AfD asserting non-notability is the best and easiest way to get the attention of the editors who can fix the article and provide reliable sources. Generally, putting up something on the talk page or even a notice atop the article itself does nothing. I am gaming the system somewhat, but it ends up working well for everyone: if the subject is notable, reliable sources are found, and if the subject isn't notable, the article is deleted. Thus I tend to be very liberal in the articles I will send to AfD. --Philosophus ^T 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Afding to get an article improved is a good plan. i helped save the Relate and Traditional Mongolian medicine because I was keeping an eye on the AfD list. Totnesmartin 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems like one of those UFOs phamanon stuff. It seems pretty interesting. Unlike the Grey aliens who are said to be hostile this type on E.T. seems freindly. Maybe not all E.T. aliens are bad. ShadowKinght (Talk??) 05:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want sources, here are but a few. Please check more thoroughly before you say that something is not notable of verifiable. One could get quite the wrong impression.

• Hugh, Christopher Partridge (2003) "UFO Religions", Routledge, ISBN 0415263239
• Dean, Jodi (1998)"Aliens in America: Conspiracy Cultures from Outerspace to Cyberspace",Cornell University Press, ISBN 0801484685
• Turnage, C. L. (2001) "Sexual Encounters with Estraterrestrials: A Provocative Examination of Alien Contact" Timeless Voyager Press, ISBN 189226403X
• Schnoebelen William J. (2003) "Space Invaders", Xlibris Corporation, ISBN 1413424015
• Salla, Michael E. (2004) "Exopolitics: Political Implication of the Extraterrestrial Presence", Dandelion Books, LLC, ISBN 1893302563 (Nordics and Atlantis/Nazi mythology).
• Knight-Jadczyk, Laura (2005) "The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive", Red Pill Press, ISBN 1897244169
• Michael Barkun(2003) "A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America", University of California, ISBN 0520238052

perfectblue 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Again, this is a notable subject within its field (Ufology). Deleting it will not prevent belief in the subject and keeping it will not promote belief. There is a movement afoot on wikipedia to delete paranormal topics and especially UFO topics by individuals professing on their talk pages to be Skeptics and "deletionists". It seems that they do not trust readers of wikipedia to be able to read articles on fringe subjects and decide for themselves if those subjects have merit. I am an editor who believes it is not necessary to protect wikipedia readers from such subjects. In fact, the move to delete them is only further testament to their importance. Ufology and the subsjects of Nordic Aliens, Reptillian Aliens etc etc is evolving into a new religious movement. Since these subjects are now in the magisterium of faith, they should be treated the same way we treat other fringe beliefs: Document them.LiPollis 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and continue to expand. This is a purported species of alien often mentioned in ufo circles and abductee cases. --Northmeister 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable paranormal article. Add more references though. J. D. Redding 16:13, 7 May 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.