Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Alderney UFO sighting


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There are a few arguments here that are weak. When NOTNEWS and FRINGE are concerns, pointing only to the number of news sources covering a topic doesn't carry much weight. And there appears to be at least one argument suggesting we should have an article because this could be a "real" sighting, which may affect that editor's longevity in this community but carries no weight whatsoever here. Conversely, how often UFO sightings are reported is quite irrelevant; it's SIGCOV that matters.

Setting those arguments aside, there is clear consensus here that the topic has substantive coverage from reliable sources. However, those arguing for deletion generally contend that this coverage is insufficiently analytical to let us write an article compliant with WP:FRINGE; that is, even the best possible version would give undue credence to fringe viewpoints. This is a good argument in principle, but in this case it is outweighed by editors arguing that the improved version of the article does comply with WP:FRINGE, and specifically that writing that a pilot said he saw something does not make a fringe claim.

Please note that I'm not dealing with any of the allegations of canvassing here. Inappropriate behavior may have occurred; but this isn't the forum to deal with it, and closing this takes long enough without my needing to investigate other behavior. If concerns remain about canvassing or disruption, please take them up at AN. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

2007 Alderney UFO sighting

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I was tagging this article for cleanup, but going through the sources made me realize that there is very little here on which to write an article. Credulous youtube videos, a paper published in the poorly considered Journal of Scientific Exploration and a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources seem to be the only thing this article is hanging its hat on. WP:TNT is necessary here, I think. jps (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Examining the article prior to the appropriate, jps-mediated application of dynamite, one learns of a non-notable non-event ignored by WP:FRIND sources and reported (I should probably write "promoted") only by dubious, unquestionably pro-fringe sources (e.g., David Clarke; Leslie Kean; the pro-woo Society for Scientific Exploration and their laughable Journal of Scientific Exploration). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: plenty of hits on Google Books verify that this was a reported sighting. Most of those sources aren't particularly high-quality in determining whether it was real (that is, actually aliens), but that's not our concern; they're reliable enough as documents of the claims of the sighting. Also reported in the Evening Standard here and the subject of a TV documentary here. Also made it briefly into a government document here and local-ish news here, at least briefly. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, which of those books do you think is reliable for accurately documenting the claims? Remember, too, that WP:SENSATION means that local press is not considered a reliable source for UFO claims. Additionally, if no one who isn't a believer in UFO absurdity has noticed, we probably cannot have an article on the subject. jps (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The books aside, we've got the Evening Standard, which is national news. Looking further, it's got SIGCOV by the BBC in this article, in the Register here, and here in the New Yorker. There's also this Times article hit on Google, but it's paywalled and might be a false positive) Again, I am not saying that it's a real UFO, but it's pretty undeniable that the claims of a sighting have been discussed in HQRS, and we report incidents of mass hysteria, hoaxes, cryptid "sightings" without giving credence to them. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:SENSATION. You seem to have been taken in by a craze that is producing unreliable content in what are otherwise normally reliable sources. The problem is that even claims of UFOs need to be verified by people who are separate from credulous community because false positives abound to such an extent that there is a WP:NFRINGE question whether every single claim is worthy of an article. In general, we go by WP:FRIND to establish when a claim about UFOs is worthy of discussion in this reference work. That is what we are lacking here: any third-party evaluation. It's all WP:PRIMARY and breathless speculation. jps (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've managed to get hold of the Times article from 2021; it certainly has SIGCOV, including a short interview with the pilot who allegedly saw the UFO. I'm going to have a go at knocking together a short article from the HQRS we do have; I should have the bones of something by the end of today. Hopefully we'll then be in a position to judge whether an article meeting WP:GNG is a possibility. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Did they interview anyone who wasn't a UFO believer? jps (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:GNG that the significant coverage in high-quality, independent, reliable sources has to be balanced; WP:GNG judges the quality of the source, not the article. I don't think WP:GNG has room to quibble the quality of the article, only whether its source is considered independent, published, reliable and secondary. Again, this is an article on a claimed sighting; it doesn't (any longer) engage with what, if anything, may actually have been seen. The BBC, the Telegraph, the New Yorker, the Times and the Evening Standard are all fairly unimpeachable, and all have WP's seal of approval of Reliable sources/Perennial sources. That's five good sources reporting on the claimed sighting, which means that it passes WP:GNG by just any standards. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no academic or skeptical reception for this alleged UFO sighting, this means there is a serious lack of reliable sources and the neutrality issue of not having a balanced article but one that is overly supportive of fringe content. Journal of Scientific Exploration and YouTube videos are not reliable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See my comment above: there's certainly coverage in reliable, non-fringe press sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - if there isn't WP:SIGCOV on whether or not the sighting was real then there isn't WP:SIGCOV at all. All UFO claims are obviously just swamp gas but if it didn't even merit enough attention to get a full debunking it's just mindless media chatter, whatever passes for journalism these days should categorically not be considered a WP:RS for this sort of thing. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I've completely rewritten the article based on what I can find in undisputably HQRS. It's not going to be making FAC any time soon, but I think it fairly conclusively demonstrates WP:GNG, and I'm happy for the text to be picked apart to remove anything that isn't strictly factual or verifiable (note that the entire sighting is couched in "Bowyer reported..."). I think the adoption of this 'sighting', particularly given the shakiness of its evidence base (basically a chat between a pilot and an ATC guy), by ufologists is interesting, but that would require citing some less-reliable sources as WP:PRIMARY, which I don't think is a good idea when the overall notability of the subject is in question. There's also the (self-published?) 2007 book on the topic, which gets referenced in some dodgy places but actually seems remarkably level-headed: the authors seem to be fairly respectable folklorists, it avoids anything about aliens and all but calls the pilot a liar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * : Since your comments, the article has been blown up and started over. Thinking of WP:HEY, could you see if you think it now shows that the claims of the sighting have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Evening Standard and Daily Telegraph might be reliable for talking about someone's diet or if they own a pet dog but they are not reliable for fringe content. The article is unbalanced, there are no academic, scholarly or skeptical sources on the article. The Register is not a good source . The Evening Standard is a credulous tabloid source . For me I stick with what I voted, to delete. There are good and bad articles on Wikipedia, this in my opinion is still bad per lack of reliable sourcing. I am not a fan of the tabloid fluff. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this; I appreciate you taking a second look. I'd strongly dispute that label on the Telegraph; I'm not fan of it in general, but it's regarded as one of the UK's newspapers of record, and it's considered reliable on the perennial sources page. Leaving those three aside, though, we still have The Times, the BBC and the New Yorker. That's three good, reliable sources, which should be a clear GNG pass even if we totally reject the others (which, again, I think would be incorrect). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph is one of the three UK newspapers of record, alongside the Times and Guardian, all three are of equal quality. The Telegraph has repeatedly stated to be reliable at RS noticeboard. The Evening Standard is also a reliable source, if not as prestigious as the three aforementioned. There is no requirement whatsoever for RS to be "sceptical" in the sense that you mean it, being an ideological commitment to disprove claims of the supernatural, or in this case, claims that third parties might attribute to the supernatural. The articles record experiences that people claim to have undergone, in this case, multiple people, without taking a position on their explanation, or even their veracity. This looks very much like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Boynamedsue (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV the article is not good because it is not balanced and is giving undue weight. Just because a website may be deemed reliable does not mean it is reliable per fringe content. Newspapers make their money by making sensational stories and that is all this article cites. Journalists are the last sort of people you would want to rely on for writing an article about UFOs and in this case we only cite journalists. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SENSATION seems to be assiduously avoided by you. Why is that? Where in all these "impeccable sources" do you find the authors doing the due diligence of finding independent experts who are not in the sway of credulous belief in ufology? Yes, in this area, sources that are normally reliable seem to be wont to fall into sensationalism which includes the BBC, The New Yorker, and so forth. Rather than this being an exemplar of WP:HEY, I am inclined to find this to be more of an exemplar of how there seem to be no good sources for this subject. jps (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's a fair reading of WP:SENSATION, which (to me) is warning against using low-quality journalistic sources, or using journalistic sources to support sensational statements. I don't see it as prohibiting the use of widely-acknowledged reliable journalistic sources to report statements made by people, where the fact of their having made the statement is not controversial or extraordinary (again, that's very different from saying that the statement they make isn't controversial). I appreciate that we may not agree on this one, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing the fact that the pilots made a claim. What is unaccounted is the context for this claim. People see shit all the time. For whatever reason, pilots who see shit end up getting noticed by sensationalized news services (probably because there is money to be made by such reporting). WP:NFRINGE deals with this sort of problem and explicitly calls out those outlets which are otherwise normally perfectly reliable. The problem is and always has been when it comes to this subject that it is in the same league as stories about Marian apparitions, haunted houses, or sightings of Bigfoot. It's all the same soft-ball journalistic game given to third-string reporters who either begrudgingly do the assignment or are themselves so compromised by credulity as to not be able to simple things like, say, fact check straightforward physical claims. Anyway, we have these WP:PAGs like WP:FRIND for a reason. There absolutely do exist sightings reports which have been noticed enough by third parties that you can write a WP:NPOV article on the subject. But this article has only the pilot's say-so breathlessly repeated in what I would describe as "clickbait articles". Wikipedia is not meant to be indiscriminate, and that is what I see this "improved" article still suffering from. jps (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're going to agree here, though I appreciate your time and effort in continuing this discussion in good faith. I'm sympathetic to a great deal of what you say, but I don't think it constitutes a reasonable interpretation of the acceptable reasons to delete an article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a single source cited that I would consider reliable for this sort of thing. News sources are categorically bad for aliens per WP:SENSATION. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is relevant to User:Psychologist Guy's point as well: each AfD is different, but a useful comparison might be Flight 105 UFO sighting, which is a GA on a similar topic. There's plenty of use of newspaper sources there, and indeed I can't see a meaningful difference between the sourcing for this article and that one (the GA has books, but of the sort cleared out in previous edits as unreliable). On a related topic, we have Cottingley Fairies, an FA, which heavily uses news source as well.
 * It's a valid belief to hold that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on claims that are almost certainly untrue, but that ship has rather sailed. Similarly, the idea that news sources should be automatically discounted as HQRS in an article on a UFO sighting simply doesn't fit with WP:HQRS, or indeed the established practice across the encyclopaedia.
 * WP:CONLEVEL is important here: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Saying that well-regarded news outlets cannot be used as sources for reports of a UFO sighting runs against the large-scale community consensus. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd support an AFD for that article as well. I don't think the ship has sailed or ever will sail on platforming nonsense. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At least the Flight 105 article has the benefit of a reliable, independent third-party evaluation of the pilot's claim. This article doesn't even have that. The UK authorities just dismissed the report out of hand. jps (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SENSATION is hardly "local consensus". jps (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but the interpretation of it you and other users seem to be attempting to implement here certainly is. The idea seems to be that reports on the topic of UFOs in reliable sources must, in all circumstances fall under WP:SENSATION, which is completely unfounded. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think that UFO reports are not WP:SENSATIONal, I think you are out on a limb far away from the reality of this subject. jps (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I strongly suggest that no loophole in WP:GNG exists for reports of moving objects in the sky which the witness does not recognise. We have articles on many things which empirically are not real, and many more which may not be real. If UFO reports were somehow an exception to this, it would have been mentioned in the guidelines. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You think GNG is magic sauce of some sort that automatically confers necessary to be an article status on every topic? You are mistaken. GNG is a standard by which one can judge the possibility of whether an article should exist. It is not a suicide pact. I can point to many subjects for which I can find sources that satisfy GNG which are not articles because, perhaps, they are part of another article or there are extenuating circumstances which prevent the article from being written with adherence to WP:5P. There are plenty of subjects that are covered by such awful souring that they just do not belong in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. I remain unconvinced that this article should be retained. What follows are two on-wikipedia examples that might help illustrate that opinion. In the first, the Varginha UFO incident, we have an "incident" involving a fairly large number of witnesses/observers to nothing unusual, and although nothing actually happened there is a large number of reliable, WP:FRIND sources that, for better or worse, establish its notability. The Alderney event has a small number of witnesses (and based on my readings, perhaps only one), and despite happening 16 years ago it has not generated anything close to the Varginha level of reliable sourcing, which I consider to be a bare minimum for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I also note that the Alderney event has attracted almost no reliably-sourced attention whatsoever since 2007. The second example involves events that occurred during the 1980s, in which dozens, if not hundreds, of people observed UFOs flying in the vicinity of the Hudson River in New York (see the Black triangle (UFO) page). Those events, which were hoaxes perpetrated by pilots of ultra-light aircraft, do not have (or merit) a stand-alone page in part because, like the Alderney event, the attention it has received is dominated by WP:SENSATIONAL, unreliable sources written by unquestionably pro-fringe ufologists. The Alderney event seems to me similarly dominated by unreliable articles/books from credulous, pro-fringe writers, including the currently-cited David Clarke and Matthew Campbell . Such attention does not signify notability. Perhaps the Alderney incident does merit brief attention in another article, such as here. Perhaps. But it remains insufficiently notable to have its own article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you: I appreciate your taking the time to set this out. What are your objections to David Clarke (not currently cited in the article, except in Further Reading) and Matthew Campbell? Clarke is an academic at Sheffield Hallam University who works on the folklore of UFO sightings (not a Ufologist), and Campbell is a senior foreign correspondent for the Times. Those are both positions that carry with them a strong assumption of being WP:HQRS. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Clarke's long list of credulous, sensationalist writings and activities related to UFOs speaks for itself, and I note that having an academic position does not automatically qualify one's published works as reliable. Campbell's writings on UFOs, including his Twitter posts, in my opinion define everything he writes about the topic as unreliable. Assumptions of reliability are appropriate, but those assumptions go only as far as the actual material. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Observation by two pilots who went public, two passengers who went public, besides a sighting from land, and radar observations that seem to corroborate the sighting. So, visually observed from three directions, and from a fourth if you include radar traces, which also provided exact coordinates of two objects (now removed from article). Subject of a study by David Clarke. Something happened. As with the Tunguska event we don't know what caused it, but it happened. On a par or better substantiated than the 2006 O'Hare sighting. Does anyone want to delete that also? JMK (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We absolutely know what happened at Tunguska. Bizarre that you would claim otherwise (and concerning since competence is required). This seems to be a sort of WP:ADVOCACY for you rather than a dispassionate approach to a subject which is rightly maligned as full of credulity and lacking rigor as the analysis presented still in the article seems to do. jps (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, and a fairly obvious one at that. The article as it exists now is impeccably sourced. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is full of reliable non trivial coverage so it meets WP:GNG. It also has WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Bruxton (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Canvassing jfs has posted this AfD on the Fringe Theories noticeboard with the intent of attracting support for deletion. While it may be considered relevant given their objections relate in part to WP:FRINGE, the way the notice is framed not neutral. That board is also something of a meeting point for users who identify as "sceptics", who they might reasonably believe would support their arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a severe violation of WP:AGF and a complete misapprehension of the rules for dealing with WP:FRINGE content. jps (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * with the intent of attracting support for deletion How, praytell, did you divine the intent of my notice to WP:FTN? Do you think you have psychic powers? jps (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because you use the term WP:TNT in both your nomination and your canvas at the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. This indicates your desired outcome. My psychic powers were quite unnecessary here. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because I see cause for an article to be deleted doesn't mean my intent is to attract support for said deletion. Again, this is a massive abrogation of WP:AGF. jps (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As you seem intent on arguing the toss here, I would refer you to WP:INAPPNOTE. You fall foul of 3 out of 4 categories here.


 * 1. Message. Your initial message on the noticeboard was not to ask opinion but to advise the board of what you believed to be a bad article. You then stated you had referred it to AfD and that "I think we should WP:TNT this."At no point were you asking for the opinions of others, you were canvassing their support. This is clearly what is advised against as a "biased message".
 * 2. Audience. The audience you chose to advise is partisan, given the self-selecting nature of people concerned with removing Fringe Theories from wikipedia. It is exceptionally unusual to find users ready to state that mainstream newspapers are not reliable sources, this is an extreme minority position. Yet 3 have visited this page, yourself and two posters who are regular visitors to the Fringe theories noticeboard, attracted by your canvas. There are several other noticeboards which might be interested in this AfD, you did not notify them.
 * 3. Transparency. No notification is visible on this page advising that you have posted this AfD there with your opinion on the article.


 * So, AGF dictates that I assume this lack of care does not relate to any deliberate malice on your part, rather to a misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS. However, it does not require that I refrain from pointing out that your behaviour has contradicted this policy. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think I am behaving badly, take it up with ANI. I reject your made-up rules about how people are supposed to frame messages. I have an agenda, I trust that others who read my posts can be competent enough to make their own decisions without parroting my own. My intent is to inform about what I think is best for the website and the public-facing content, nothing more.jps (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I was merely making the closer aware of your canvassing, so it can be taken into consideration. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no evidence of canvassing here. None. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is very strong evidence, given the non-neutral message, the partisan forum, and the fact that of 8 commenters on this RfC, 4 have voted keep, and 4 have voted delete. All of the latter are regular posters at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The audience you chose to advise is partisan, given the self-selecting nature of people concerned with removing Fringe Theories from wikipedia. Huh? Are you saying all the editors at WP:FTN are partisan? Or just some of them? Which ones? I've been volunteering at WP:FTN for several years and I'd love to know how you are able to determine the biases of all the editors that post there. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I fully recognise that many users at that forum either don't identify as "sceptics", or if they do, don't let it interfere with their editing. However, the choice to link at that forum and nowhere else had a vote-stacking effect here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean jfs literally said "You know what [...] I think we should WP:TNT this". There's no way that's a neutral notice - it's clearly urging people to go and get this article deleted. A neutral notice would (at the very least) not advocate coming here to vote one way. I wouldn't suggest WP:ANI unless it becomes (is?) a pattern of behaviour but Boynamedsue is right to flag it up to the closer. FOARP (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking the aspersions. Discussions on here seem to often ramp up in nastiness so I appreciate you de-escalating to keep things chill especially considering the "gravel in your guts and the spit in your eye". Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - Roxy the dog 15:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) (unsigned comment, that breaks page fornatting, removed. I came here from FTN, a noticeboard dedicated to improving the project by discussion about good, and piss poor articles, of which this is one. You need to refresh your understanding about WP:Canvass. Please avail yourself, whoever you are, of my helpful link. - Roxy the dog  15:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC))


 * Ok, perhaps you could have a look at WP:CIVIL while you were at it? Just to clarify, I believe that your post here kind of makes my point about WP:CANVAS, you are here because of a non-neutrally worded post in a forum with a strong bias against articles relating to topics similar to this. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Topics about unsourced nonsense and based on unreliable sources, defended by frankly WP:CIR people, indeed. This is a prime example. - Roxy the dog 16:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * PS. Are you going to complain about this? and this? oh dear me- Roxy the dog  16:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's quite unpleasant, isn't it? I think that the competence issue seems to be coming from the canvassed posters here. WP:GNG and the perennial sources list are pretty clear that The Times, Telegraph and BBC are reliable sources. We don't get to disqualify them when they say things we don't like, more's the pity. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You seem to think that the list of perennial sources is somehow more important than content guidelines which identify when otherwise reliable sources can go astray. That is the fundamental difference in editorial philosophies here. The fact of the matter is that we do get to disqualify sources when it comes to notability tests when there are problematic contexts for a particular subject. Just because a source is generally reliable doesn't make it a magic talisman for article writing in defiance of WP:NPOV (which is exactly what has happened here). jps (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The document mentioned in the New Yorker is available from NICAP. The appendices&mdash;all primary sources for this article&mdash;don't quite match the news coverage. The MoD respond saying, The position reported is outside of the UK radar coverage and in fact inside French airspace for air defence. We had no reports from the French that the object was seen or detected on radar. We believe the ATC radar at Jersey is secondary only and therefore unable to achieve a primary radar contact (if the object was capable of producing one). The contact was reported as stationary again making radar detection unlikely and no further reports indicated that the object had a heading towards the UK. Therefore, we conclude that there was no threat to the UK from this observation and will not be taking the investigation furhter. The other pilot account says visibility was fairly poor due to haze. Ray Bowyer gives a really thorough interview regarding weather and visibility. Bowyer says the BBC has the flightpath wrong. The account from the passenger sounds atsmospheric: Ray then dropped the nose of the plane down. I could then see something through the windscreen. It looked like the sun reflecting off glass. What I was looking at was a very bright light over the sea below us. It could have been sunlight reflecting off something. There were two lights. The second was roughly where I was expecting the airport to be (over Alderney). The lights persisted for a few minutes. I realize that a Wikipedia article can't be constructed from our analysis of primary sources compiled by ufologists. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work improving the article. I want to give a specific issue with the sources. The New Yorker article seemed the most reliable, so I checked it out. It cites an in-depth private research paper linked above. The passage cited to the paper, seems quite a bit off. The source seems to conflate unexplained with unexplainable and misrepresent the ufo researchers. Take a look at each:
 * The times New Yorker says: The “Report on Aerial Phenomena Observed Near the Channel Islands, UK, April 23 2007” was drafted with the coöperation of dozens of domain experts—meteorologists, oceanographers, harbormasters—and various French institutes and British ministries, and it culminated with sixteen prevailing hypotheses, ranked by plausibility. Largely ruled out were such atmospheric aberrations as sun dogs and lenticular clouds, and an exceedingly rare and poorly understood seismological phenomenon known as “earthquake lights,” in which tectonic distress expresses itself in bluish auroras or orbs. The report concluded, “In summary, we are unable to explain the UAP sightings satisfactorily.”
 * The ufo research paper says: It proved possible to eliminate a number of theories with a fairly high level of confidence, but we were unable to conclusively identify the UAPs observed. We found that two theories had some potential to explain at least a majority of the features observed and might be the basis of a future explanation. But we are sensible that a potential to explain is not an explanation. These two theories involved atmospheric-optical phenomena (specular sun reflections on a haze layer capping a local temperature inversion) or geophysical phenomena (related to ‘earthquake lights’ or EQL). But each theory has some interesting problems. As we state in our Conclusions (Section 7): ‘It may prove possible for other investigators to adapt these theories and so improve the fit with observation, or further work might thoroughly rule out one or both of them.’
 * The New Yorker is generally reliable but that's an example of the kind of error I see in that specific article. I can try to take a look at The Times later. The other articles all seem to have come within the news cycle. Also,, I hope you don't mind if I ping you to get your input on the above. Rjjiii (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Rjjiii. There's two things here: I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction you describe: the New Yorker (not the Times, I don't think) uses Largely ruled out were, which is a decent summary of It proved possible to eliminate a number of theories with a fairly high level of confidence. As I read both sources, they're saying that the researchers were unable to explain the sighting, not that the sighting could never be explained. The "unable to explain" quotation comes later in the paper.
 * There's also a bit of a have-our-cake-and-eat-it problem here: if the research paper is reliable, it's evidence that the article passes GNG; if it's not reliable, we can't use it selectively to fact-check sources we don't like. I'd suggest that it's best for the moment to treat it WP:PRIMARY, and so to use it only to point out direct misquotations or mischaracterisations of it from the secondary sources. Again, I don't see that we've got that there: could you give me a little detail as to what you meant?
 * There's a broader point on the meaning of "reliable source" here that's relevant to User:JoJo Anthrax's point: while an individual author's authority does have a bearing on WP:HQRS, the more significant point is that in general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. This is why we don't generally consider blogs, tweets or self-published works particularly reliable, even if their writers are generally considered knowledgeable and honest; conversely, when we trust a source like The Daily Telegraph, that's based on the fact that a reputable newspaper has editors and an approval process to catch and correct errors, has a large enough body of readers willing to make complaints against it, is subject to regulation that requires it to report with integrity and issue corrections when those complaints are upheld. Personally assessing each journalist through their own work (as opposed to secondary sources on it) is missing the point, and also essentially relying on a Wikipedia editor's subjective judgement, which has all the problems of WP:OR. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I should preface this by saying that a Wikipedia editor's view of a journalist, based on a search into a their Twitter account, does not overturn whether or not the newspaper for which they write is considered reliable. However, since it has been suggested that Campbell's writings on UFOs, including his Twitter posts, in my opinion define everything he writes about the topic as unreliable, I searched his Twitter for the terms "UFO", "space", "alien", "vessel" and "Alderney". The only hit was this tweet, which is anything but credulous: note the scare quotes around "UFO". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have striked (struck?) my comments about Campbell above, as I stupidly landed on the account of another, unquestionably pro-fringe writer named Matthew Campbell. Thanks very much to UndercoverClassicist for pointing out my mistake. For what it is worth - which after that is probably not much - I still believe this non-event has not received what I consider significant or sustained coverage since 2007/8, making it non-notable, and my opinion that Clarke is an unreliable source for this topic stands. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that it's best for the moment to treat it WP:PRIMARY, and so to use it only to point out direct misquotations or mischaracterisations of it from the secondary sources. Again, I don't see that we've got that there: could you give me a little detail as to what you meant? To be clear, I agree about the private research paper. I've brought it up because the secondary sources are using it. And additionally to be clear, I don't intend to vote on this one. I'm honestly not familiar enough with Wikipedia policy and otherwise it would pass the notability guidelines.
 * To give some more detail: I read the (primary source) paper as saying they ruled out all but two of the interpretations. I read the (secondary source) news article as including those two possibilities among those largely ruled out interpretations. Just past where the New Yorker cuts their quote, the primary source reads We are unable to explain the UAP sightings satisfactorily without either a) discounting at least some significant features of the reports, [...] and I think that snipping prior to "without" is rather huge. Eyewitness accounts are not 100% reliable. My reading of the statement is that 2 of the interpretations were considered plausible. Rjjiii (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I basically agree with all of that, with the caveat that the two options presented at the end of the report (essentially, "some details are inaccurate" and "all of physics is wrong") weren't among the initial 16 hypotheses, so it's still true that 0/16 were found plausible). We have to be careful, however, in how far we can use that paper within the article. If we're not going to use the paper itself as a reliable secondary source (as has been suggested earlier in this discussion), we need to follow WP:DUEWEIGHT, and follow the decisions made in HQRS (here, The New Yorker) as to which facts are presented. We're not talking about a misquotation here, and it's possible that the New Yorker had legal considerations in mind, and chose not to reprint a section of the report which could be construed as calling Bowyer a liar. To use our reading of what we consider a primary source over a high-quality secondary one, we'd have to be talking about a straightforward matter of fact (not interpretation or analysis, per WP:PRIMARY), and that's not what we have here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted to RS Noticeboard Given the discussion here has focussed on reliability of sources, I have left a neutral message on the Reliable Sources noticeboard advising of this AfD. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG from the sources in the article already. -- Jayron 32 11:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The wide variety of non-trivial sources over a long-term period seems to exceed WP:GNG. Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note to closer Could some attention be paid, aside from the issue of deletion at hand, to the disruptive behaviour of Boynamedsue in this discussion. thanks - Roxy the dog 11:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pointing out canvassing is not disruptive behaviour. I'd be happy to discuss it at ANI, if you feel differently. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Irony is that I actually found off-wiki canvassing by UFO believers for this AfD this morning. Apologies, but I will not be linking to it. jps (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You should definitely contact an admin about that then, and signal any comments on here you feel might have been canvassed off-wiki. There is absolutely no room for pro-UFO "factions" trying to influence AfD discussions. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTNEWS, SENSATIONAL, INDISCRIMINATE, and FRIND. There is nothing remarkable about this topic. Reported sightings of UFOs or UAPs by pilots is common enough. Also there has been no real world impact such as identifying a new technology, boosting a regional economy, causing a plane crash, injury, death, and so on. For example due to the Varginha UFO sighting tourism has been markedly affected which demonstrates having an impact. Not so here. Also the Pentagon received more than 366 reports of UAP sightings in 2022, showing that this is merely a common occurrence. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, the standard isn't how common the event is, but how widely it has been covered in high-quality, reliable secondary sources. On that topic, see above: I think it's fairly well-established that the subject does pass GNG by any commonly-shared definition of HQRS. Which of the reasons for deletion do you think applies here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No it is not only about how widely an event has been covered. As has been stated above, the available RS gives the presumption of a topic meriting its own article. Presumption means it is plausible, possible, or provides reasonable grounds to think it may be notable. But it is not a guarantee.


 * Here and in your above responses, what I see is, you are claiming this topic is guaranteed because it has been "widely reported" or whatever. Once sources are presented, a more in-depth discussion ensues, which is the definition of this AfD. And the discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".


 * Hence, there is nothing remarkable about this event. It's a report of a UFO, like another report of a UFO, like hundreds of other reports of UFOs, and becomes little better than gossip. This Wikipedia article has not reached beyond the level of a news report. And for that see NOTNEWS, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Likewise a newsworthy event does not automatically bestow inclusion onto a topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And, again there has been no discernable impact as a result of reports on this event. There is nothing remarkable about it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You've cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which gives four specific cases of article types that apply to it: summary-only descriptions of creative works, lyrics databases, listings of unexplained statistics and exhaustive logs of software updates. It further says that, to avoid falling foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Are you saying that you don't think this article contains data put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources? Otherwise, I'm struggling to see the policy-based objection you're making here, short of your expressed opinion that you want the article deleted: as that much-cited essay says, such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all see WP:NOTEVERYTHING where it says "...consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." Therefore, since, in my opinion, this topic does not merit inclusion, and Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminately added information, this falls into that category. If the topic doesn't qualify then it is superficial (as I have described above) or indiscriminately added. We must and should discriminate---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your position here is that WP:GNG can be over-ridden by personal preference. A text book definition of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would just like to note that this user, like all those users who have voted delete, is a regular poster at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Canvassing has occurred at that noticeboard. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is demonstrated by coverage from the BBC, The New Yorker, The Times (which called it "one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD archives"), and others.  Thank you to UndercoverClassicist for improving the article. Tim Smith (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * — Actually, coverage in such sources only gives the presumption or possibility of meriting inclusion. Inclusion is not guaranteed or automatic, based on such coverage. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, I guess. (Came here from browsing RSN). I am sympathetic to the concerns raised by the delete side here, particularly the question of whether we should have any articles on UFO sightings that have not attracted substantial skeptical coverage. In the abstract I'd be inclined to say we shouldn't. But IMO the work that has been done on the article makes a strong case that solid encyclopedic coverage is possible in this particular instance. -- Visviva (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * — In fact, it is the unavailability of substantial skeptical coverage that causes the coverage in this article to be out of balance and lacking in parity. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a misreading of WP:UNDUE, which says that coverage should be balanced in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. If you think that's not the case, could you provide some HQRS covering the subject matter from another perspective? Otherwise, if such "substantial skeptical coverage" does not exist in published, reliable sources, there's no break of WP:UNDUE. Likewise, WP:PARITY explicitly concerns parity of sources: you haven't suggested any sources which aren't already included, so this would also seem to be a fairly clear misreading or misapplication of the guideline. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you have given an interesting interpretation to UNDUE. I'm not calling it wrong, nor am I calling what I said wrong. What I mean is this event has been ignored by academia or other acknowledged experts - skeptics if you will. As was said above, this is about context - where normally reliable sources cover fringe (sensational) stories such as this, probably because they consider it newsworthy, and it attracts readers.


 * What I mean by UNDUE is the coverage is not in balance because only one side of this story has been covered. This story does not have the benefit of a reliable, independent third-party evaluation of the pilot's claim. This includes no scientific or academic sources that discuss this. This means that UNDUE prominence is being given to this story.


 * PARITY again points to the lack of available skeptical sources, because what we have now is one sided. The editor just above pointed out the lack of substantial scientific coverage. So to give an example, regarding Creation science, academia has pushed back in a big way. Same with Intelligent design. Such has not happened here because it has not garnered interest in the scientific community. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing your own definition of "undue weight" with that provided by WP:UNDUE. You might feel that the article is unbalanced relative to the sources that should exist, or that you would like to exist, but WP:UNDUE specifically deals with the sources that do exist. There is no policy argument for deleting an article based on how its topic would or should have been covered in sources that do not exist. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not my own personal definition of UNDUE. By publishing a Wikipedia article based only on witness based newspaper reports, is focusing on a minority view, which is a merely a handful of people claiming this happened. What is lacking is analysis of the bigger picture by third party analysists. In the Teheran citing mentioned below third party analysts pointed to celestial objects such as, perhaps a planet. Another pointed to a meteor shower that happened around that time. These are mainstream views, and UFO sightings deviate from this norm. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A UFO sighting, per the definition adopted by Britannica and explicitly stated in this article, is simply any aerial object or optical phenomenon not readily identifiable to the observer. There's nothing non-mainstream about saying that people sometimes see objects or optical phenomena in the sky that they cannot readily identify. No non-mainstream explanation for the reported phenomena has been offered. I'm really not seeing the controversial viewpoint you're arguing against, unless you're saying that "UFO" automatically means something paranormal or alien, which would contradict the definition used by the (very) HQRS cited and indeed by practically everyone working in the field. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mainstream is the scientific or academic consensus. And it's about context. So far I have never said anything about alien or paranormal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sourcing has improved since the nomination, as is sometimes, if not often, the case with AfDs.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm skeptical about unidentified flying objects, but my personal feelings about the subject are not important. I think this article, with sources from The Times, The Daily Telegraph and the BBC passes WP:GNG. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Basically per WP:Hey. Over-zealousness in some quarters has led to people simply trying to delete ghost/cryptid/UFO sighting articles because “they’re not real”. They don’t seem to get that whether they’re real or not (and I doubt many !voting keep here are true believers in UFOs) doesn’t actually matter in whether articles are kept or not. What matters is whether reliable sources covered them, and in this case, they did. Obviously our coverage should also not assert that UFOs are real but that’s a content issue, not a DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you have hit the nail on the head. There is some highly ideological commentary on this page, which doesn't seem to be based in any of our policies.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not involved in this field much but see this RSN discussion for a classic example of the thinking being applied here: any book not explicitly written from the POV of sceptics must be unreliable even if we're very clear in the article that we're talking about pseudoscience. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that delete voters are angry because they think that UFOs aren't "real". This is a complete misapprehension of my position and, I would not hesitate to add, the position of others who have worked on this subject. The problem is that the claimed literature on UFOs is written in a way that is sloppy because of the boosterism. There are a lot of people who are excited by UFOs because, as they say in the X-Files, they want to believe. Thus, lovingly documenting even the most mundane and unremarkable claims ends up happening in the context of UFOlogy. The problem is, this "data collection" (scare quotes intentional) is so poorly accounted that it becomes nearly unusable in the context of documenting actual occurrences. So many of these sightings turn out to be mundane misidentifications, delusions, and hoaxes that the null hypothesis is that this is what they all are. However, the "sources" which report these things do not take this WP:MAINSTREAM analysis seriously either for lack of knowing that this is the mainstream approach or because they disdain it outright. We are left, then, with awful sourcing for individual sightings such as what we have here. This is not the case for all sightings. Some are famous enough to have sources which properly contextualize them. But this particular sighting was only noticed by charlatans and third-rate reporters (or, at the most, reporters who are not meeting the bar of due diligence in fact checking). This is the objection we have. The normal games of source finding just do not apply when you are talking about a subject that is consigned to credulity within even otherwise upstanding newsrooms. jps (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. (I agree that the FTN post is non-neutral and that FTN is a biased group, however, given the lack of enthusiasm for curtailing such project/community notifications in general, and the longstanding practice of ignoring WP:CANVAS when it comes to FTN in particular, I think that those concerns should be addressed on another forum.)
 * The article summarizes a reported UFO sighting cited to what are generally regarded as HQRS. The problem is that this article covering an undeniably FRINGE topic merely describes the event and quotes witness testimony without providing any context from HQRS representing the prevailing stance of experts in the relevant fields (scientists, academic skeptics). All UFO sightings fall under bullet point 4 of WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, [...] No matter how dispassionately an exceptional claim is presented, no matter how carefully we attribute statements ("Bowyer said" etc.), and no matter how many lay RS credulously cover it, it should not appear on WP if it cannot be appropriately contextualized:  Right now we lack sources that evaluate the legitimacy/interpretations of the sighting from the perspective of the mainstream skeptical stance on UFOs, by people qualified in the relevant fields. Per PARITY, criticism of the event could even come from non-academic secondary RS. But what we can't have is a simple summary of what the witnesses said they saw and their interpretations of it, because what they said they saw is plainly under the purview of FRINGE and thus just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. Basically all we have is quotes, and basically none of them are appropriately contextualized. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a major misreading of both WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY here: many of these points have already been made in the discussion, but both guidelines apply to asserting the truth of a certain claim. The article does not claim that aliens visited Alderney. It is not a WP:FRINGE or WP:EXTRAORDINARY idea to say that a pilot made the reports cited in the article. Indeed, nothing stated as fact in the article is unverifiable or even particularly controversial: the potential implications of those facts might be, but that's a completely separate matter.
 * I hate to repeat a point made many times already, but in response to The problem is that this article covering an undeniably FRINGE topic merely describes the event and quotes witness testimony without providing any context from HQRS representing the prevailing stance of experts in the relevant fields (scientists, academic skeptics: if there is material from HQRS representing sceptical views, it should be included, but there's no policy-based reason to delete an article based on the assertion that "there must be sources" which express a particular view, particularly when that article's subject already passes GNG from the material available. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it doesn't pass GNG until the discussion is over and other considerations are taken into account, such as what has been elucidated in this discussion. And I am not seeing "a major misreading of both WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY here." The above description by is right on point. In fact it is well said. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, EXTRAORDINARY (a policy, not a guideline) and FRINGE do not only apply to asserting valuations of a topic in wikivoice; they do not even require a fringe view to be articulated in our article. EXTRAORDINARY covers any claims that contradict the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, it doesn't require that those claims have to have already been explicitly debunked. The claims of the pilot defy the mainstream understanding of atmospheric and physical sciences, and the event's characterization by the media as a "UFO sighting" puts it squarely in the category of FRINGE just as a sasquatch sighting would be. The section on attribution makes it clear that even when a quote about a FRINGE topic is accurately reproduced and verifiably attributed (as in the given Bigfoot example), it must not be included without contextualization making it clear that any claims therein are at odds with prevailing consensus. WP:FRINGELEVEL states Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. It adds Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. If there are not RS available to provide that context, the material should not be in the article. Since this article is almost entirely sourced to (even secondary repetition of) a primary recounting of a FRINGE experience, it cannot comply with this direction. JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Starting from Wikipedia's own definition of a UFO as An unidentified flying object (UFO) is any perceived aerial phenomenon that cannot be immediately identified or explained., and echoing the comment made below by User:North8000, I really don't see anything exceptional, fringe or, again, even particularly controversial. I think you might be assuming that "UFO" means "alien spacecraft" or even "physical entity". Note in particular the word perceived in the definition. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep UFO doesn't mean aliens, it means unidentified flying object (or apparent object)  IMO no, it wasn't aliens, it was some other phenomena that didn't get figured out.  That people saw and reported something that they saw isn't fringe it is reality.  A claim that it was aliens would be fringe but such is not the title or content or claim of this article. At a quick glance it appears that it was widely reported by RS's.   Wikipedia is the place to come to read about the particulars including what was reported. Disclaimer: I only did a quick overview of the sources, not a deep dive. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayron32 and Tim Smith. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article does not make any claim or even hypothesis that it was an alien craft. Further, it doesn't even cover anybody else making that claim or hypothesis. It covers people seeing an unexplained phenomena. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most of the arguments are relating to sources which simply repeat assertions something was seen. These amount to WP:ITEXISTS, which is not a valid reason to keep an article. As Steve Quinn points out above, there is nothing about this report that stands out from the many, many other UFO sightings, and it has not generated any real in-depth coverage. This is WP:NOTNEWS, and does not substantiate an independent article. It's yet another trivial entry in the "we don't know what we saw" category of media reports. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The 1976 Tehran incident (on Wikipedia) has analytic sources . This shows that these types of sources are needed for this article. Otherwise, there is only a regurgitation of witness testimony, which amounts to nothing. All that is left is sensational news coverage of testimonials - "he said this", "they said that" and so on. The only reason it got coverage is because it's called a UFO. Without that UFO label (sensational) it probably would not have been picked up by the news media. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's as may be, but it was picked up by the media, and by several sources weeks, months and years afterwards. WP:GNG is passed and WP:NOTNEWS isn't a concern, since long-term coverage in HQRS can be demonstrated.
 * Edited to add: it's worth saying that most of the academic study of UFO sightings comes from folklorists: that is, people who are interested in them as narratives that people construct to explain things that they see or think they see. If you look at the academic discussion on UFOs, you'll find very few articles trying to prove what they are or aren't, and far more talking about the social and cultural conditions that lead certain people to attach certain explanations to certain phenomena. This recent-ish article is a good example. It seems strange to insist on a source "debunking" something where no serious source has made a controversial claim about it .UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Further to this, I've now added a footnote, citing Britannica, that "UFO" is here defined as any aerial object or optical phenomenon not readily identifiable to the observer. As many commenters here have pointed out, it's certainly not fringe or extraordinary to say that sometimes people see or report seeing aerial objects or optical phenomena that they cannot readily identify. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, I never claimed that debunking was needed. Debunking is different from providing analysis. In the Tehran incident analysts provided context with stating that it might have been a celestial object, such as a planet. Another analyst said a meteor shower occurred around that time. So the pilots in Tehran may have been chasing natural celestial phenomena. And I don't think anyone in this discussion is claiming that debunking is needed. Also, contrary to the above NOTNEWS is a concern. To wit: ...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia [and]...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Also this sighting has no historical significance (also per NOTNEWS).


 * And the academic study you cited is exactly on point about the academic counterpoint needed in a Wikipedia article such as this. The author is doctoral student who was published in an academic journal. He applies folklore theory, an academic discipline, and cognitive anthropology, which speaks for itself as an academic discipline. This is a professional study. Pertaining to this particular journal: "The contents of the Journal reflect a wide range of professional concerns and theoretical orientations. Articles present significant research findings and theoretical analyses from folklore and related fields." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that we're probably not going to agree here, though I do appreciate your time in continuing to explain your point of view. As I understand it, you've made a couple of arguments:
 * 1. WP:NOTNEWS: that the article is simply a news report, and so meets c14 of the deletion criteria. However, the topic has been discussed at length in multiple sources outside its news cycle: even if you remove those within a week of the event from the article altogether, it would still pass GNG comfortably.
 * 2. That the article meets WP:GNG, but should be excluded for some other reason: in your comments above, for instance, you've mentioned that it "has no historical significance", and that few academics have attempted to explain what might "really" have happened. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is that it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources: saying that GNG doesn't "count" because you don't think those sources should have covered it, or you don't like how they did cover it, is simply WP:IDL. As we've established, WP:DUEWEIGHT is fully satisfied as long as the balance of coverage in reliable sources is accurately reflected in the article. WP:CONLEVEL applies here: an individual AfD discussion between a handful of editors can't impose different standards for notability than those used across the encyclopaedia as a whole.
 * 3. That the article deals with WP:FRINGE material, and therefore sources presenting the mainstream point of view are needed. Leaving aside whether WP:FRINGE is an argument for deletion (which it generally isn't), everything in the article is pedestrian, verifiable and cited to mainstream sources: it is, by definition, not fringe material if it's being reported as fact in the BBC, the Times, the New Yorker and so on. I don't think you've given an example of a non-mainstream claim made in the article that needs to be balanced.
 * I appreciate that you've got a clear idea of what you'd like the article, and its sources, to look like. However, deletion needs to work by policy, not an editor's personal opinion of what they would like or not like Wikipedia to have. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not my personal opinion. And please stop trying to throw shade on my contributions here by minimizing them as personal opinion. Also, that is just rhetoric for the benefit of the closer. And you are not the authority on "deletion needs to work on policy." As an editor in good standing, I am allowed to interpret policy and guidelines. I never said that newspaper sources should not have covered it nor did I say that I didn't like how they did it. This kind of coverage is common. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth - again probably for the benefit of the closer. And no one is trying to impose different standards for notability in this discussion. It seems that these are standards that you are not used to dealing with and this comes through in your arguments. And these standards are wholly appropriate and valid. And I have to say, FRINGE material has been, is, and will continue to be covered in the press. Just because you don't think so, doesn't mean it's not true. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple reliable sources have reported on this incident. While the article may require some amount of cleanup to comply with WP:FRINGE, that is a separate issue from whether the article should be deleted. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, there isn't a "no UFO sightings or other weird shit" exception to GNG. There are a lot of arguments being made in favor of deletion which unfortunately seem to substitute personal opinion for our policies and guidelines (and to perhaps not actually understand the ones they are invoking, one wonders if we have a bit of a canvasing problem with so many editors who don't understand notability commenting on a deletion discussion). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been agreed at a recent ANI (against myself) that WP:CANVASS is not applicable here. I think there is a certain viewpoint among sceptic users that mentioning woo adjacent topics without explicitly stating "this is not true" renders any source unreliable, despite WP:GNG. These users frequent FTN quite a lot, and this type of AfD is always notified there. Unfortunately it is difficult to see a way round the problems arising from this within current policy guidelines which explicitly state this is not canvassing.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Has enough RS now. TNT is not needed (anymore). Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no need of separate page for fictional things because you can list in existing related article(s) like List of reported UFO sightings or by location lists.DSP2092(talk) 07:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because there is a list for something doesn't allow you to AfD away whatever you object to even when it perfectly fits all WP policies. This is too detailed for a list, the list would contain the short version with a link to the article which has more information. Re your personal opinion assessment "fictional things" – please see WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's "too detailed" because 75% of it is primary quotes from witnesses...if you remove those you just get a few sentences saying it happened and that various atmospheric phenomena might have been responsible. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.