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 - The numbers lean this way, but the primary reasons for delete are FRINGE or being a FRINGE magnet. In this context, I don't that applies. The article isn't substantiating that UFOs exist, only documenting that they have been covered. While it might attract some people adding less than notable reports, that is a matter of editing, not a reason to delete the article itself. Additionally, while individual sightings might not be notable as singular events, it is conceivable that the aggregate IS notable. As such, the arguments to keep are much stronger in this particular case. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in China[edit]

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

Not a notable fringe topic as no independent sources have written on this as a separate an worthy point of inquiry. Individual sightings in China can be covered on articles dedicated to such happenings when they cross various notability thresholds. jps (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 05:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons cited by proposer. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the content, delete the parts that make it a list. There was consensus that Meng Zhaoguo incident was notable, but that article was merged and redirected to this list to improve the list. If it's deleted this section needs splitting from it - actually removing anything without sources would leave only two short sentences about a 2010 incident that can be merged to the main list and this section, so I suggest doing that and moving this to Meng Zhaoguo incident without a redirect. If coverage of a sufficient number of notable incidents can be found, this may become a valid list; it isn't much of one now. Peter James (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vague non-notable WP:FRINGE-magnet. Although I would not oppose demerging Meng Zhaoguo or starting a fresh article there. bobrayner (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are plenty of reliable sources which suggesting UFO sightings in China have been a significant event. We can find a large number of sources in Chinese, which the nominator has not verified. Here are some more RS ABC News, Yahoo. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed sources you are offering are in violation of WP:NFRINGE considerations. News of the weird coverage is not enough to justify keeping an article in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is about various unexplained events and how society has taken notice of them (for example, by categorising them as "UFO sightings"), rather than a theory whether fringe or not. Those are reliable secondary sources for the proposed purpose. Peter James (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what a "fringe theory" is according to Wikipedia definitions. We have articles on how society views UFO sightings in the aggregate and, when applicable, for individual situations. It may be possible to write a Wikipedia article on the UFO phenomenon in the cultural context of China, but this article is not poised to do that and no sources have been identified which show that this is a possible article at this time. Instead, this article is an attempted collection of news-of-the-weird reports. That's simply not what Wikipedia is for. jps (talk) 19:07, 3 June 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, postdlf (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a bigger scheme of by country articles about this topic (many listed in the template, for example). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe I've ever read such an argument for keeping an article before. Would you care to elaborate? By the logic of such an argument, I think you would have us create articles on UFO sightings in every single country in the world. So will you be contesting, for example, the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Iraq? jps (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I absolutely must intercede in a process that merges one article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meng Zhaoguo incident into another article that gets deleted, on the basis of procedural irregularity alone. To "de-merge" it also proves irregularity, showing the merge target was too weak for it to have been merged into in the first place. Voters have made a mess of this already, let's just leave it alone and get on with improving the article. Anarchangel (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The other article discussion is irrelevant to the task at hand. If you want to spin-out some stub for what you think is a plausibly notable topic, by all means go right ahead. But to argue that "voters have made a mess of this already" as the argument for deletion seems like a strong case of WP:AADD. jps (talk) 16:03, 12 June 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.