Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien abduction entities

Alien abduction entities

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A textbook WP:COATRACK whose title refers to the "entities" conducting alien abductions, but whose content is a concise survey of every alien abduction trope under the sun, referenced to "gee, this person needs help"-type fluff articles in otherwise reliable sources. We have articles on the different "types" of alien beings UFO believers have described. This article adds nothing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This feels like an entry for a fanfiction wiki. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and redirect to Alien abduction. There is an ongoing discussion of sorts at Talk:Alien abduction entities#Redirect, but frankly, given the failure of sourcing issues to be addressed properly, I can't see that being particularly productive. I could go into greater detail, and will do if requested, but as a summary I'd suggest that the sourcing falls broadly into two classes: (a) inadequate, pro-fringe, and sometimes not actually supporting the content it is supposedly being cited for, and (b) adequate, but covering material already discussed in greater detail, in context, in the parent Alien abduction article. In my opinion, there is nothing of significance worthy of merge. The article is an obvious PoV-fork, giving entirely undue prominence to a cobbled-together collection of miscellaneous factoids regarding the unverifiable claims of individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after making sure there's nothing useful in it that would work better in Alien abduction, which seems to be an already-begun effort, per Andy's comment above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provides useful information for researchers and is written to be neutral. Word frequency: alleged #13, claim #17, skeptic #4. It just needs a {{more citations needed}} template. I scrolled through the Alien abduction article and there aren't any sections on the supposed abuctors. This article is a counterpart to Alien abduction claimants. 5Q5|^✉ 11:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is also a highly problematic coatrack article--sanewashing fringe claims and adding a single mild sentence of skepticism at the end--but that's a problem for another day. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Alien abduction claimants article is a POV fork of Alien abduction, and as such a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV policy. I've started an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect to Alien abduction. Obvious WP:POVFORK. Article is attempting to categorize and identify commonalities among aliens. Sources are details extracted from various abduction narratives and discussions which are then given undue weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe leave a redirect. The article has an odd scope that doesn't match the reliable sources it should be citing. Scholarship on the entities reported by contactees treats those entities as funhouse mirror reflections of the contactee, reflecting their beliefs, fears, and the culture from which they can draw archetypes. To take one example from this article, the section on a purported "pencil-sized cylindrical device with a light on one end" is treating it as some piece of technology that could plausibly exist and could plausibly be used by some singular civilization of entities praying on humanity. WP:RS almost unanimously describe the entities and their kit as reflecting the people reporting them, and therefore tied to the person or their culture.
In The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan described these reported entities as "disappointingly local". Before the widespread influence of grey aliens in US media, many local cultures developed their regional types of entities. In a recent interview, Greg Ehigian commented on the earliest reported beings, "In the 1940s and 50s into the early 60s, it's a very wide range, very diverse group of beings that are talked about. Everything from little men under four feet tall, sometimes as small as under 12 inches. Other times they're large, hairy monsters that sort of look like Sasquatch. There are robots, there are males, there are females, there are androgynous beings, there are bulbous heads. Some are absolutely gorgeous and look like fashion models, all sorts of things. What happens over time, and this is what's interesting to me, is that those images start to winnow down, and there becomes a kind of a homogeneity to it all, kind of a standardisation, if you will, in descriptions. (Eghigian 2024)" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 5Q5. Alternatively, merge to Alien abduction. Note that this article is more specific than alien abduction in that it's about the alleged entities and broader in that it's about the claimed entities in general not just in regards to alien abduction. I think the two tables in section "Types" may be good to delete.

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per AndyTheGrump, LuckyLouie, Rjjiii, et alia. No need to repeat their fine comments. A redirect to Alien abduction seems fair. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]