Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otis AFB F-94C Disappearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Sandstein (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otis AFB F-94C Disappearance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written account of a seemingly fictitious event. Roregan (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the writing shouldn't really enter into it, many things can be copyedited and rewritten if necessary. But this article concerns me in that its been written in the style of an actual factual crash, but when you look closely you see that there isn't really any persuasive evidence. Only referenced to one source, a conspiracy theory style UFO website. I think it seems to be trying to claim that it must have happened because the evidence has been so well hidden. I can't answer for that, but the lack of verifiability means it should remain in the pages of the conspiracy theory journals and not on wikipedia. Benea (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the same reason given Benea. There aren't any google hits outside of this Wikipedia article and the aforementioned conspiracy websites. Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I could've edited it more and I might after seeing this but the site that I referenced is more or less a site that believes in UFO's. My only question is why would the History Channel put something on their show with only one or two sources of information with which to back up their information. Clearly they know something that I probably do not. I might contact them if anyone else thinks that it is a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article fails on many levels. The notion that the History Channel might know something that the rest of us do not is pretty silly. There are lots of programs that mine the odd paranormal notions to hook viewers. I understand Wikipedia's standards to be higher than that. If only on the issue of WP:V, as noted by parsecboy. Roregan (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and Benea. JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see what others think but Parsecboy does have a point. My only question is did he spend his research on the net or in the archives. If it was in the archives, then he's right. I know some things aren't always on the internat that the actual archives has. Kevin Rutherford 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- I searched both; Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books, as well as the rather extensive Ohio State library, and there were no references to the event in any of them. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is actually discussed in ISBN 1933648384, but I could find no other sources. Seems minor even in UFO community terms. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That actually changes this here. We've found a reliable source, this book by Timothy Good. If someone has this book, and can add some appropriate in-line citations, this article could be kept. Also, to address Dhartung's reservations about the subject's notability, that a secondary source has been published that discusses the incident, that seems to me to pass WP:N. Striking my previous vote, I think this article should be
Kept. Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]- If you examine the sources he uses carefully (notes 15-20, end of chapter), they do not inspire confidence. One is from Exposition-Banner, an imprint of a well-known vanity press.[1] Another is to a personal website. Only part of the section is sourced to a major imprint work, and that is a separate incident entirely. This is little better than hearsay from a biased source (i.e. in favor of UFO-style explanations). --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That actually changes this here. We've found a reliable source, this book by Timothy Good. If someone has this book, and can add some appropriate in-line citations, this article could be kept. Also, to address Dhartung's reservations about the subject's notability, that a secondary source has been published that discusses the incident, that seems to me to pass WP:N. Striking my previous vote, I think this article should be
- I had a feeling I might've been jumping the gun in changing my mind :) I don't have the book myself, so I can't check the references used by the author. So, strike my previous striking, turns out this source isn't all that reliable after all. Parsecboy (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where are we here? I do think consensus to delete has been achieved, regardless of the author's disagreement. If anyone does find a reliable source for this alleged incident, the article can always be recreated. Given the problems with verifiability, I think this article can at this point be safely deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question on re-creation. Could I upload the text of a database or would I have to re-type it all again?Kevin Rutherford 21:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with copying the text to your computer and working on it there. One suggestion I might make would be to, after you've found reliable sources, copy the article to a user sub-page, something like User:Ktr101/Sandbox or the like, before recreating the mainspace page. You could then ask any of the editors here who have weighed in on the AfD to check it over and see if the sources you find are reliable. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2008 (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.