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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 23:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article has been around for a long time yet makes unsourced or unverifiable statements almost exclusively. It has not shown one hint of improving since the last AfD in May 2007. I recommend either a redirect or a merge with Extraterrestrial hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piddle (talk • contribs)

• keep although a fringe topic, so home to a reasonable amount of dubious claims, it's a notable topic. A quick check of the history shows it was much better referenced until only a few weeks ago, and the mass removal of references around then seems unwarranted, especially as the only one left was a Youtube link.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to say delete for the lack of references, but given what you write I will postpone making up my mind on this. __meco (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See all of the sources cited in the first AFD discussion, too. Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is, not surprisingly, a mess, but Nordics are one of the "classic" alien-types. Take your pick of one of these sources. They're also mentioned in various Skeptical Inquirer articles: [1], [2]. George Adamski's stories about Venusians even got him an entry in the American National Biography. Zagalejo^^^ 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll pick the first, then. It's ISBN 9781440104718, and it spins a strange yarn of L. Ron Hubbard having Nazi connections and being contacted by Aryan UFO people. None of the potted biographies of the author indicate any qualifications apart from religious ones. And there's no indication as to where the author is getting xyr facts from, or how xe is checking them. Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gotta love iUniverse... OK, maybe not all of the books will work, but some of them are OK. This seems like it might have an entry on Nordics. It's from ABC-CLIO, and is written by Jerome Clark, who at least cites his sources. I'll try to pick up a copy from my library when I have a chance. Zagalejo^^^ 05:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because I heard this term, wanted to know what it was, went to wikipedia and got my answer. Isn't that what encyclopedias are for? Lack of references is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for improving the article. Ariel. (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, lack of references IS grounds for deletion per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are a lot of new agey or conpiracy-related topics that most people who follow those scenes will have a ready knowledge of but which articles covering the ubject are consitently removed from Wikipedia because the subject has no coverage in reliable sources, i.e. mainstream or academic media. __meco (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I similarly heard this term and looked it up and came to wikipedia because other sites found through a search engine did not look safe. If Wikipedia guidelines are to remove such articles due to a lack of references, then maybe that Wikipedia deletion rule needs to be re-examined for alteration so as to allow this sort of article. Yes it is fringe material and yes such material is not going to ever be able to be properly referenced, but for those of us who want a safe place to find out basic info about such ideas, what better place to go than Wikipedia? And in reference to Wikipedia references policies, I would feel sorry for the 1st inventor or "the wheel" or any other first that has no precedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moleher (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, if there are no people who have checked their facts, subjected their work to peer review, and published it, then Wikipedia should not be giving you "basic info", because there is no trustworthy basic info to give. Giving you a bad article that is full of badly researched or even possibly just made up information is not the task of an encylopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This term is frequently mentioned in the literature and must surely be covered somewhere in some serious study on cultural theories of UFO belief/folklore. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The video game Perfect Dark deals with this kind of extraterrestrials. Niwi3 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2010 (CET)
• Keep. Article was apparently the target of numerous IP vandals who removed much of the sourcing, leaving the article in a questionable state. The topic is notable enough for article inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Inappropriate AfD as a simple GBooks search would show established use of this terminology. Fæ (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and ruthlessly prune non-WP:RS source material. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (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.