Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena

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. A strong consensus to delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVFORK of Unidentified flying object, with little or no redeeming value as an article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nominator. This is a clear and unambiguous POV-fork of subject matter already covered elsewhere, cobbled together to promote a fringe perspective. It is full of blatant synthesis, misuse of sources, and off-topic editorialising (see e.g. "See also: Epistemology and Axiom" under the section header for the highly-questionable 'Table of proposed explanations' subheading. Who exactly thinks readers be directed to an article on epistemology here? The article creator does evidently, but why the heck should we give a damn about what they think?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my deletion rationale a little, I think we should also take note of the title - 'academic research...' - and the sourcing being cited. Shouldn't an article on academic subjects be cited to academic sources? Or at least, to sources actually discussing academic research? Instead, we are being foisted with tabloid-style news websites, (e.g. [1] which is written by some guy plugging a book on 'UAPs') as sources for third-hand quotes etc. The article title seems to have been concocted to hide the blatant POV-forking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the sources being cited see WP:RS. If only references to academic studies were sufficient that would be great and even more reason to keep the article, but then you'd complain about WP:PRIMARY.
It is not "foisted with tabloid-style news websites", I know what quality refs are and these are used in large number within the article, such as The New York Times, NASA, The Washington Post, nonprimary scientific studies that were picked up by news media, BBC, NBC News, Scientific American, Science news, Science Magazine, etc. The sources are actually discussing academic research (as well as the topic within academia and the history + status + backgrounds of the research).
Your rationale does not make sense, it's not "POV-forking" and you violate WP:NPOV. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To expand yet more on my rationale, I suspect that WP:AND may also be relevant to this discussion: Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research. The article is entitled 'Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena', but who exactly decides the 'and'? Who decides what is or isn't 'related'? More specifically, which sources (amongst those actually discussing 'academic research') link SETI and UFOs? SETI concerns itself, as far as I am aware, with attempting to detect evidence of 'intelligence' amongst the interstellar radio wave background. It doesn't concern itself with unexplained anecdotal observations of flying objects. The claim that the two different topics are generally considered 'related' within academic research seems highly questionable, and further evidence of POV-pushing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as author: it uses countless WP:RS like quality secondary sources like The New York Times, NASA, The Washington Post, nonprimary scientific studies, BBC, etc. Why do you think it would be violating WP:PROFRINGE or WP:POVFORK? It's fine and compliant with policies, redirecting/deleting it is not, please make specific concrete points and see WP:RS, WP:NPV & WP:DEL and especially WP:DEM.
  • it's not a content fork, I wrote basically all of that anew (nearly all of it except parts of a transclusion) and it's not the topic of the redirected-to article (also there's e.g. Effects of climate change and Effects of climate change on oceans ...or Herpes simplex research, Spinal cord injury research, NASA research, Artificial neuron, Academic study of video games as a medium, etc despite of their larger-order topic parent/related article). For example, the article is too specific and extensive to be included in the broader UFO article.
  • I already added a section "Status as a field" with lots of WP:RS which call it like in the page title and show it's a valid very notable subject (as do all the other refs, including for example statements by Director of national intelligence Avril Haines or NASA administrator Bill Nelson that appear to affirm the validity of this subject as a topic of academia in principle).
  • Deleting it would violate WP:NPOV, the article does not push any view. If you think that's needed, you could further expand the section "Research about the status of the field" if you found it too short. I already moved it up and added even more clarifications that many scientists consider this a topic of pseudoscience or the respective work pseudoscience. This does not make it any less notable, even if the article in your opinion and in the assessment of nearly all scientists would really only describe a failed approach of academics / something that is "stupid" or harmful or shouldn't be done by academics.
Prototyperspective (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given your evident inability to actually understand the Wikipedia policies you are citing, I can see little point in responding to any of that. AfD discussions are resolved by general consensus amongst participants, and not through back-and-forth arguments with article creators. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And these should read, cite, and know Wikipedia policies like WP:DEM to base the consensus on.
You need to do more than basically say "I don't like this article because I find it pushes a view I find stupid" – you should also say why you think that is and address the points.
To address the two policies you have mentioned so far: why would they even apply to the article. The article does not violate them. For example, "if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory" does not apply to the article which uses WP:RS. For the second policy actually named by you, the article is not "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)" "to be developed according to a particular point of view" – the article is about academic research of UFOs and I already explained that, for example by referring to examples Effects of climate change on oceans and Spinal cord injury research.
It does seem you would hope to be able to ignore any actual arguments and implement your personal opinion without any basis in objective arguments and policies while violating the policy that says "Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting".Along with a circle of other guardkeepers, you routinely somewhat single-topic-esque work on keeping out certain information you don't like or find inappropriate. That's The way you participate in decision-making, does not appear to be compliant with WP:DEM. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork, and per nom and Grumpy Andy. -Roxy on tour 16:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems well researched, ref bombs out the wazoo though (five or six citations for "psychological effects"). Could perhaps trim it down, seems NPOV otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you no opinion about the POVFORK from UFO, which also seems NPOV??? - Roxy the dog 16:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'ref bombing' is there, certainly. Citing sources for things they don't say, and/or cherry-picked only to support the article POV. See e.g. this BBC article, [2] and the content it is supposedly being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an easy way to discard WP:RS, it's not "ref bombing" but proper definitely sufficient reliable sources that you can't just discard. The specific article you linked is one in no less than six refs. If you object it for some reason (why?), you could remove it, it wouldn't make any change to the content. Sources are not cited "for things they don't say, and/or cherry-picked only to support the article POV", if you find a section too short or missing add to it, but I don't think something major is missing there, these were not cherry-picked and I think you misunderstand WP:NPOV. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of simple questions: What specific article text was the BBC article I linked above being cited for? And do you consider that citing it for that specific content was compliant with Wikipedia policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's not "ref bombing" "The specific article you linked is one in no less than six refs" do you see where this might confuse people? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's a valid point, I only used this many refs in places because I knew people here would complain, not because it's really needed to be sufficient WP:RS. If I don't you'd complain there's too few sources and that the article does not meet notability criteria, if I do, you complain that it's "ref bombing". I copyedited the respective section to make things clearer and separate the refs. I'll work on it further, you can't expect an article to be perfect in its first revisions, it would be constructive if you pointed out what specific flaws are and/or improved the article yourself. I'd remove redundant refs if that's preferred but not before the article is kept because otherwise people complain about notability / a lack of WP:RS. --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This starts out sounding like it's a summary of the lit, but quickly morphs into presenting idiocy in WP's own voice. Might as well create an article "Academic research about Orange Americans", with the primary conclusion being that Trump is a lizard and not even mentioning the possibility of cosmetics.
Creating a duplicate article like this is commonly done to avoid oversight. IMO, the responsible approach would be to expand the corresponding section of the UFO article, subject to the review of the editors guarding it against pseudoscience, and then if justified by WEIGHT splitting it off into its own article. — kwami (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it "not even mentioning the possibility of cosmetics" in this analogy? This is false and to address it further, I'll repeat my earlier comment:
    • I already added a section "Status as a field" with lots of WP:RS which call it like in the page title and show it's a valid very notable subject (as do all the other refs, including for example statements by Director of national intelligence Avril Haines or NASA administrator Bill Nelson that appear to affirm the validity of this subject as a topic of academia in principle).
    • Deleting it would violate WP:NPOV, the article does not push any view. If you think that's needed, you could further expand the section "Research about the status of the field" if you found it too short. I already moved it up and added even more clarifications that many scientists consider this a topic of pseudoscience or the respective work pseudoscience. This does not make it any less notable, even if the article in your opinion and in the assessment of nearly all scientists would really only describe a failed approach of academics / something that is "stupid" or harmful or shouldn't be done by academics.
it also has content on literature about the psychology of UFO witnesses etc, that for example suggest things to be caused by sleep paralysis or camera artifacts / optical illusions etc, this is a summary of the literature without cherry-picking. Again, if you find something too short or missing explain what and why and/or add it with WP:RS (and I used and searched for anything about academic research, not for any particular conclusion) but nothing major is missing or misleading/misrepresented there (albeit the first revision of an article is always rather unlikely to be perfect). Prototyperspective (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per author, who I thank for their work. The article is a welcome and reasonably neutral addition to an area of discussion that has been controversial for many decades, and is a well-sourced overview. Opposers arguments to delete this article are unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Having alternative views on Wikipedia is fine, but the Ufology article already captures the scope of this article. Merging the new content in this article with Ufology might be the best way to prevent a POV fork and keep the author's additions, which with editing, would become reasonably neutral. tofubird | ✉ 20:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. This well-referenced article proposed for deletion allows for additional detailed material in a rapidly-expanding area of academic research beyond the general scope of the Ufology article. Jusdafax (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, if it is about 'academic research' as it claims, is it citing tabloid news websites (including, I note, the New York Post, which is explicitly Deprecated at WP:RS/P)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an exception, removed that source.
    There are plenty of refs right next to it anyway. I don't think any other tabloid news websites are cited in there and if there's one or two more, please remove them.
    Concerning why it's so many WP:RS news articles instead of scientific articles, that's because otherwise people would complain about WP:PRIMARY, not because it would (currently) make (much) sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not going to clean up your conspiracy-theory-peddling (as in "See also: List of asset management firms, List of richest people in the world, and List of largest companies by revenue") POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing there that needs to be cleaned up for it to be kept.
    It's not "conspiracy-theory-peddling". These three wikilinks just clarify the "Advanced human technology by private sectors" hypothesis a bit (relevant articles as in explaining what such may refer to). I find that hypothesis ridiculous, and the article certainly doesn't indicate or imply that it isn't, but it should be there for completeness. It's not a POV fork. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think adding links to 'List of asset management firms', 'List of richest people in the world' etc (not even remotely discussed in the source supposedly cited) is 'clarifying' what 'private sectors' means? We are rapidly approaching WP:CIR territory here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly modified to more closely match the source which said "commercial entity". Prototyperspective (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations, you have won the Internet 'Missing the Point entirely' award for September 1922. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Be bold. The 'general scope' of the Ufology article isn't some law of nature descended from the heavens. Why don't we increase the scope of the Ufology article to include the well-referenced stuff you find in this article? Currently this article is an obvious fork to avoid the issues of giving undue weight to the fantastic theories vs. the mundane theories pertaining to the phenomenon. As it stands, attributing UAP to aliens and the supernatural is still a minority (although slowly growing) position, but let's not mislead readers by forking the Ufology article with a substantially longer, biased, and honestly messy article on its "academic research". In good faith, I'm happy to merge and rewrite relevant information here into the Ufology article. tofubird | ✉ 00:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a few small clarifications:
    • aliens and "the supernatural" are very different, if not antagonal, things.
    • >90% of this article is very well referenced so that's too extensive (the remaining 10% is at least sufficiently referenced, especially when considering the respective content such as its length).
    • It's not a fork just like Effects of climate change on oceans is not a fork of Effects of climate change or Spinal cord injury research is not a fork Spinal cord injury or at least no more than these with there being no policy against such (rather the opposite) and there being countless other examples of child articles.
    • "attributing UAP to aliens and the supernatural is still a minority [...] position" as is is a statement of personal opinion. You need to be aware of that fact.
      • Then, please, again, disentangle these two attributions, at the very least they are not necessarily linked. Then, please actually look into what the WP:RS say about that. Some indeed call it a minority opinion, however a significant one (see WP:NPOV)! Others don't and these include this reported by WP:RS which said: A smaller but still sizable share of the public (51%) says that UFOs reported by people in the military are likely evidence of intelligent life outside Earth. Most of this sentiment comes from people who say that military-reported UFOs are “probably” evidence of extraterrestrial life (40%), rather than “definitely” such evidence (11%), according to the survey of 10,417 U.S. adults, conducted June 14 to 24. On the other hand, 47% of Americans say the military reports are probably (36%) or definitely (11%) not evidence of life outside Earth.
      • Many other sources only implicitly saying it's not a minority view at least at this point. Moreover, if you read the article you'd know that NASA administrator Bill Nelson stated that UAP could be from a civilization that is civilised and organised like ours, the U.S.' Director of national intelligence Avril Haines has stated There’s always the question of 'is there something else that we simply do not understand, that might come extraterrestrially?'. It is a valid possibility to take seriously. There are further WP:RS, many of which in the article, that show this to be a significant possibility that is not to be precluded (or reduced to ~one small sentence which nearly ridicules it) and to be (sufficiently) covered via WP:RS.
      • Maybe things were different in the past concerning this subject (note that the "slowly growing" part is also a statement of your personal view as is) and I can totally understand the view – and I'm not saying that it's yours – that it's just silly to really think these may be aliens (as a very valid possibility) rather than weather balloons, hoaxes, military tech trials and issues with sensors like cameras as I did think so too for a long time.
      • It's very important for the public perception of and quality of Wikipedia that we do not make decisions based on opinions (see WP:DEM), but on WP:RS & WP:NPOV (facts, not our views), and policy-based-rational-and-specific arguments.
    Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it uses countless quality secondary sources, nonprimary scientific studies, BBC, etc. This is a topic that is being studied academically. Deleting it could be considered as WP:NPOV.--Joji (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Joji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with ufology, as this article is misleading about its content, given that it is purportedly about "academic research" yet it doesn't cite any actual academic research. The "and related phenomena" in the title is ambiguous, and WP:SYNTHESIS seems to be present (as in connecting the subject with SETI, which has nothing to do with UFOs). The article devotes attention to tangential subjects like this, basically making it a WP:COATRACK. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: concerning why it's so many WP:RS news articles instead of scientific articles, that's because otherwise people would complain about WP:PRIMARY, not because it would (currently) make (much) sense. I'd love it if people were okay with me citing more of the papers there but it seems like to them they would need to be mostly reviews. However, it already does cite many academic studies (along with other outputs academia), albeit there surprisingly aren't yet as many as one may expect on this topic, but the body of literature is growing rapidly by now and what you said is quite frankly false.
    • The "related phenomena" isn't really ambiguous and you can't name each of those in the title because there too many / too different ones.
    • SETI does have to do with UFOs – for example some prominent SETI scientists have spoken about UFOs (positively and negatively) or are also involved with research about it plus UFOs are considered by some as a potential technosignature or solution to the Fermi paradox or even part of SETI by some etc. It certainly doesn't "connect" the subject any more than appropriate. Sometimes, the terms SETA or SETV or search for technosignatures are used for more related segments of SETI, but usually they aren't and SETI is the respective topic and the explicitly named field of research in WP:RS.
    • Coatrack is an essay, not a policy, and the article doesn't devote attention to tangential subjects. The respective studies often can't be cited directly for the reason named above so one had to use secondary WP:RS that at the same time aren't books outside of academia. The covered topics, each with due length here, are not tangential.
    Prototyperspective (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to re-hash the same arguments; I read and considered your other responses before I commented here. I find your response unconvincing, and it doesn't invalidate anything I wrote. I stand by my comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Rework needed: I don't see any reason for deletion as the strongest argument in support of that, "POV-fork of subject matter already covered elsewhere", rings hollow. The scope of the Ufology article encompasses much more than the subject covered in this one. This article already has enough content to stand on its own. It's essentially a section in the Ufology article, but it already has much more content to be the reduced to just a section. Keep this, and summarize it in the Ufology article with this linked as the main article. The citations here are solid and thorough by typical WP standard. But I do think this article needs some editing in tone to be more neutral and not sound like an apologetics. Loaded language is used too liberally in the article and there is a lack of precision in the prose. But a need for rework is not enough reason for deletion. EyeTruth (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that EyeTruth (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is false.
Moreover, editors advocating for a delete have made relatively few contributions outside of removing & reverting UFO etc related contents & participating in associated discussions if that is relevant here too then. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't canvassed into this discussion. I've been keeping a close watch on UFO-related articles in the last few years, but too many of them are so terribly written that it leaves me with little motivation to get involved. Your accusation is very nonsensical, and there is no way I can imagine that you aren't engaging in this discussion in very bad faith. EyeTruth (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that he is not the only editor who lost motivation to edit UFO-related topics. Another example is Deathlibrarian, who like me pointed out the grave and very clear violation of WP:NPOV at Pentagon UFO videos and edits a variety of many UFO-unrelated topics: his goodbye from the topic. Not even a hatnote about concerns of WP:NPOV or alike were allowed to stay at that article but removed from the same editors who participated with delete votes in this discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— ArdentMaverick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Proto - ya did good to try to make a great article. It needs a lot of work, but I see what you're going for... If I were you, I'd hang back and let others take the ball and run with it it. Some vested contributors have stepped up to say they want to help rehabilitate the article, let's give them a chance. You're not going to convince anyone that the current version works, but if you hang back, others might agree to step up and help the article get where it needs to be. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & Merge because of perceived bad title is not a strong reason. All suggestions of merging into Ufology fall flat because we will easily end up exactly where we started, which is a need for a standalone article. Merging this 5000-word article into Ufology as just a section, even if half the content is dropped on merge, will start pushing the article toward the soft limits suggested by WP:SPLITSIZE. EyeTruth (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from mainspace and move to user space. Users first attempt at an article has too many editorial policy problems they don’t seem to grasp, e.g.WP:FRINGE, WP:FRIND, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:AND, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POVFORK etc. and the “ufology IS science!” WP:ADVOCACY subtext is pretty obvious. Userfication and discussion may eventually unearth some usable bits appropriate for a section in Ufology, but the article is definitely not a candidate for mainspace at this time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, version of the article was already created in draft-space at Draft:Academic research about UAP and related phenomena, after original mainspace article was created and a few hours prior to this AfD being filed. Seems to be a potential implicit agreement from original author to move to draft-space, delete from main-space, and follow the standard review process of the draft article. While there seem to be reasonable arguments that userify or an outright delete would be the right course of action, draftify seems like the minimum agreed to and may be an interim solution pending the draft. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I only put it there because a user threatened me with a block for no reason so I didn't want to risk reverting the Wikipedia-policy-uncompliant blatant deletion (redirecting to the article UFO). I disagree with moving it anywhere but within article mainspace. If people have concerns, they should be specific. However, the article is in a good state and is based on lots of WP:RS, there is no need or valid rationale so far to move it (nor for any implied required changes if it's not to stay there indefinitely). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest that if you earnestly think that the potential of being blocked was unwarranted and had no policy basis, and that there's no possibility you could be wrong about that, you should have stuck to your guns. The simultaneous draft- and main-space articles risk muddying the waters of any discussion at best, and could be perceived as an attempt to WP:GAME the system at worst. As an alternative, I'd suggest agreeing to keep only the draft version until it can be submitted for the standard approval process, as an indication that you are indeed WP:HERE to work collaboratively to address the concerns presented above. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the pre-emptive assumption of bad faith Prototyperspective included as a 'comment' at the top of the draft. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why that? Why would "simultaneous draft- and main-space articles" be advantageous to me at all? I did not mean to "game" anything with that and have already explained why I put it there. Please point to e.g. specific parts of the article and cite policies, I don't understand your concerns as of the latest revision of the article, it's fine with all these policies. What exactly are the concerns? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the length of the article and pace of updates, I don't have the time or energy to do a more thorough review of the content. Hence restricting my comment to the dispute resolution and collaboration side. In this case, having thousands of characters of revisions in the two days since creation suggests being a draft could be the best option to work such issues out, particularly when there's significant concern and contention over the content. Then having the content forked into a mainspace and draftspace article makes it even more difficult to know the 'real' revision intended to be critiqued and edited, and muddies the water for this particular discussion: do we delete this article and leave the draft, keep it and delete the draft, delete both? To more directly answer your question, I'm saying the forked draft could be interpreted as WP:GAMENAME. Not that this was your intent, only that it could be perceived as such, and providing recommendations which could make collaboration easier. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much done with the article now and most characters were refs. I can't delete the draft, but if somebody can do so, please go ahead and delete it. Sorry for the draft, I don't know how WP:GAMENAME would apply but hope this is solved by deleting the draft. (Please keep the article and delete the draft) Prototyperspective (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Sprawling, rambling article that reads like POV-pushing right from the WP:AND in the title. If serious academic research has been done on the subject, use that to reference the UFO and Ufology articles instead. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is it sprawling or "rambling"? Where does it read like "POV-pushing"? Have you considered that this is what the WP:RS said and that meeting WP:NPOV can be offensive to some? What's the problem with the title and which alternative title would you propose? The article is too extensive and a too specific / narrow topic to be included in either (or both) of these articles in ~full. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Info about article blanking – in the midst of this AfD two users, both btw heavily involved in many prior similar deletions within this topic, have blanked most of the article despite of (the points I made and) WP:RS for these contents. I then moved the article to Research about UFOs and related phenomena by scholars to address the user's concerns and for reverting the WP:RS-backed content. Another alternative name would be "Scholarly research about UFOs and related phenomena" or "UFOs and related phenomena in academia" (or similar or simply the original title).
    Here is the removal, which I'd like to revert per WP:BRD, and find incompatible with Wikipedia policies, especially given the given rationales for these blanking-edits. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to your incompetent and pointless title-meddling, this AfD is no longer linked to the article it refers to. As for blanking, if you showed to slightest evidence of actually understanding the policies you parrot endlessly, I might consider a detailed response worthwhile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still linked to the article it refers, only the title is the former title.
    I do understand the policies. You don't need to make a detailed response, just make actual specific points (like referring to specific parts and specific sources along with specific quotes from a policy). You didn't do so even despite me addressing any concerns as far as I could with that inspecifity.
    • Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources check (until your removals)
    • making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) check (until your removals)
    • If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. check (there are plenty)
    • Prefer secondary sources check
    • News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. check
    • Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. check
    • Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source
    • A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view check
    • etc. I don't see how the article doesn't perfectly meet this WP:RS. You violated WP:NPOV by removing lots of relevant WP:RS due WP:NPOV content that you don't like.
    Prototyperspective (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeated citing of policies you have already been shown not to understand is going to achieve nothing. Read WP:BADGER, and let experienced contributors decide the fate of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective, where does it read like POV-pushing? For example when it read "[Harvard professor] John E. Mack [went] on television with alien abductees",[4] as if 'alien abductees' was an established category of people, like hurricane survivors or war veterans. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Did miss that and thought that's the term used also by e.g. psychologists who think these were sleep paralysis. The correct term to use there would be alien abduction claimant. If there's more issues like this, they need to be fixed.
@Slywriter: Note that first section was only added afterwards to address criticism and lead already got trimmed. The article is not about a summary of academia opinions on the topic (which would be difficult to write about due to lack of surveys or reviews) but about research work&findings within ~this domain of society. Pentagon UFO videos exists to present a specific POV but that's another topic.
Sorry for having moved the article, it's name could be changed later. Also see part more in-depth discussion, I appreciate the increased specificity of recent commenters. --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add - please stop bludgeoning. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well since WP:RS has been brought up at this AfD I am also commenting on that. WP:GNG says reliable sources are not a guarantee that a topic is notable and merits inclusion on Wikipedia. Quoting from GNG: "...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article...". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Origin of AAV / objects Description Notable counterarguments
Advanced human technology by (a) commercial entity/ies
See also: List of asset management firms, List of richest people in the world, and List of largest companies by revenue
all too reminiscent of hand-waving invitations to do the research yourself, join the dots and see the conspiracy, all suggestion and no evidence that our lists of asset managers etc have anything to do with UFOs, let alone academic research about them. NebY (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2022 (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.
  1. ^ Roulette, Joey; Gorman, Steve (17 May 2022). "U.S. officials say Pentagon committed to understanding UFO origins". Reuters. Retrieved 10 September 2022.