Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Mexican Congress alien corpses display


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Jaime Maussan. If an editor want this article to exist, under this title or another page title, feel free to take this AFD to Deletion Review. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 Mexican Congress alien corpses display

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

Fringey and covered in Jaime Maussan already, this does not deserve its own article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Jaime Maussan to be included with his other similar claims. No standalone notability aside from WP:RECENTISM WP:SENSATIONAL coverage. Rename as "Peruvian alien mummy hoax (or hoaxes)", per VdSV9 and 5Q5. Rewrite using all the RS we have regarding all the Peruvian "alien mummies" hoaxed to date. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Soft keep: A hearing of a legislative body can meet notability guidelines. I'd like to see if there is some more lasting coverage (WP:SUSTAINED) or more hearings before deleting. I do want to note that all of the current sourcing is mostly American coverage in English and we have 0 sourcing from Mexican sources so some expansion with coverage from the country involved would probably be good. If there is no WP:SUSTAINED or expansion of the page with other sources, I may be persuaded to change to a delete vote in a few days. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We can always recreate it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean sure, I guess that's an editing philosophy difference. We can give it a few days to see if the article develops or we could delete now and recreate if the sourcing emerges later. I don't have strong preferences here, just the opinion a legislative hearing that makes international headlines may be able to meet WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this is not about the hearing, but one aspect of it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, and redirect to the Maussan bio where the context is clearer. There is clearly not going to be sustained discussion regarding the 'corpses' that doesn't centre on Maussan. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question: Given that this article was translated to create Exhibición de cadáveres de extraterrestres en México de 2023, do we need to do anything extra to make sure a version history is preserved to show the version that the Spanish article was translated from? I haven't participated in an AfD with a live translation on another Wiki before so was just curious if there was anything additional we have to do because of it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are worried, you can list the usernames over at the other language's page. That should satisfy the terms of CC-BY. jps (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll do that if the article is AfD'ed. Just noting the author here since the article history will be deleted:Ainty Painty.
 * Also, if anyone knows how to save just one version of the article history at AfD, it looks like it was translated from this version (judging from the time of publication of the Spanish version). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:SENSATION. jps (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jaime Maussan as WP:SENSATION Parham wiki (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect This is part of a long pattern of hoaxing by Maussan, and it makes sense to group this in with his other hoaxes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep—unless this display is confirmed as another stunt from Maussan, keep the article up until there's actual confirmation that the corpses are fake (per WP:WAIT and WP:N). Redirect to Maussan's page and include information that this was Mexico's first congressional UFO hearing (per LuckyLouie) - MateoFrayo (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The corpses are fake. This is another stunt from Maussan. These are some of the same bodies that have been shown in the past. VdSV9• ♫ 00:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a source that actually confirms it, then it shouldn't be renamed/redirected. - MateoFrayo (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the National Autonomous University of Mexico has stated his claims make no sense, and they only tested the sample they were sent for carbon 14 dating and nothing else. So he is lying about that (for a start). Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree the guy's a notorious conman, don't get me wrong—but following Wikipedia policy, unless there's confirmation that the corpses are fake, the article shouldn't be deleted. - MateoFrayo (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article's not up for deletion because the corpses are fake or not fake, the authenticity of supposed alien bodies doesn't apply to this AfD. (And anyway we now have a preponderance of RS that say it is one more in a long line of fakes) The AfD question is, do we need both a bio of Maussan *and* an article about his claims that duplicates the same material in both. (And the default is not "alien until proven fake" - when other more simple explanations are more likely). - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the majority of people on this forum, including myself, are suggesting renaming the article rather than keeping/not keeping it—regardless, I genuinely hope I'm not saying "alien real until otherwise fake"; what I am saying is that since current news outlets have yet to confirm whether or not the corpses are real, Wikipedia literally cannot (per WP:RB) simply say that they're fake, since that may be considered original research (even though the corpses probably are). - MateoFrayo (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No reliable source has stated that the 'corpses' are real. 'News outlets' are not qualified to make such assertions, and accordingly aren't WP:RS if they do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose we can't say the "corpses" are real but we can't say they're fake either haha.
 * Also, news agencies (which are often cited by news outlets), such as Reuters and Associated Press, are "reliable for [basic] statements of fact." But that's not what I'm arguing—I'm arguing that Wikipedians do NOT decide if there are other explanations for something are more likely than something else. It's not our job to analyze the corpses or do interviews with Maussan, we simply just make articles from reliable sources.
 * However, since Wikipedia generally follows a consensus from its community, and there are always exceptions to everything, maybe we could rename the article title to include "hoax." I would still recommend that we Keep the Article & Wait For Further Confirmation From RS. - MateoFrayo (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me like it is who is. I didn't provide a link in my first response to you because one had already been added to the Maussan article and to this one, and several have been added since. There are plenty of articles, the Wired one, the Vox one, that explain exactly what I said above: that These are some of the same bodies that have been shown in the past. The AP link included in your last comment explains this. I'm finding it strange that, in the same comment where you include one RS explaining that this is another stunt from Maussan, you explain how we shouldn't do OR and need to rely on RS. VdSV9• ♫  00:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am Maussan...or I'm just the Devil's Advocate here. Either way, I agree that the corpses are probably hoaxes, and the AP article I linked does say researchers in Mexico believe that the corpses are fake; but the authenticity of the corpses is still somewhat disputed and the topic is still being reported by news outlets.
 * Regardless, please allow me to clarify my position, before we keep bickering about the same thing:
 * Corpses are most likely fake, and scientists are calling it the corpses a hoax. However, this discussion is about whether or not we should rename the article, or merge with one of the sections in Maussan's page.
 * Now, I'm against the move and rename—not cause I'm Maussan and I like to spread misinformation—but because this is Mexico first congressional event on UFOs (Also shortly after the US's). It's much bigger than Maussan's hoax, especially when you have Mexican Navy officials taking out DNA analysis and 3D reconstructions on the remains.
 * So for now, I simply think we should Keep The Article, Wait For More Information, and relax. - MateoFrayo (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying you're Jaime Maussan. You're a fairly new editor with a low edit count and you may not be familiar with the nuances of how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines work, that's all. So the authenticity of the corpses is still somewhat disputed and the topic is still being reported by news outlets (with a link to the Daily Mail) is a mistake, see WP:DAILYMAIL. Agree we don't need to rush and complete the rewrite/merge/deletion today, and it's generally a good thing to get more WP:RS to respond, but there are no reliable sources that say the alien corpses may be authentic and need more testing, and the preponderance of them agree that it is a hoax. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * especially when you have Mexican Navy officials taking out DNA analysis and 3D reconstructions on the remains The "Mexican Navy official" Dr. José de Jesús Zalce Benítez is a naval surgeon and an old grifter partner of Maussan's: . - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Right—thank you for the clarification and the WP:DAILYMAIL notice, I'll definitely keep that mind for future discussion pages. I'm glad we agree that it's good thing to get more WP:RS when it comes to articles that may be impacted by ongoing/current/recent events; however, I still believe my points regarding that Maussan's shenanigans (intentionally or unintentionally) have resulted in the first congressional event regarding UFOs in Mexico. Even if the article is delete and merged with Maussan's, It should probably still be noted in the respective section of his article. Nevertheless, thanks for the assist and staying cool, Louie. - MateoFrayo (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Rename to "Peruvian alien mummy hoax" or something along those lines and make it about the whole thing.VdSV9• ♫ 00:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Rename, agree with editor VdSV9. Rewrite covering the earlier Peruvian "alien mummies" as well (see my updated comment further down). Add to Mummy forgeries, List of hoaxes, List of UFO-related hoaxes (if appropriate), and Category:Hoaxes. Here's one source to justify: ABC News/AP: Scientists call fraud on supposed extraterrestrials presented to Mexican Congress Quote: In 2017, Maussan made similar claims in Peru, and a report by the country's prosecutor's office found that the bodies were actually "recently manufactured dolls, which have been covered with a mixture of paper and synthetic glue to simulate the presence of skin." The glue explains why no pins, screws, or wires show on the X-rays holding the bones tightly together.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 12:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree the best way to handle this is combining all the RS to cite a renamed article that covers all the Peruvian mummy hoaxes - then deleting and merging Jaime Maussan into that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Jaime Maussan. I think this probably meets GNG, having been discussed in sources that aren't just sensation fodder, but per WP:NOPAGE I think the information would be better presented in the context of Maussan's biography. If anyone wishes to write a general article about "Peruvian mummy hoaxes", they can do so; that doesn't really affect this AfD. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If people think we need an article on the hearing, create one, as this is not about the hearing it's about Maussan's claims. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Rename per users VdSV9 and 5Q5 given standard titling customs for hoaxes and stunts.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 18:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment with revised renaming: Current title: "2023 Mexican Congress alien corpses display". Rename the last three words: "2023 Mexican Congress hearing on UFOs" (should have been named that from the beginning imo) and include mentions of everything that happened. This title would be in line with the U.S. version 2022 United States Congress hearings on UFOs, which also covers the first 1969 U.S. hearing. The controversy with the mummy hoaxes could take months, even a year to resolve. We can't keep this AfD open indefinitely. The proposal to end this, then, is to rename the last three words in the title, add the other speakers and topics, and continue building content within it regarding all the related Peruvian mummy hoaxes (news articles are connecting them also). We will better know in the future if a stand-alone Peruvian mummy hoax article is warranted. Perhaps when the time is right, someone can do an RfC on the talk page proposing it or go bold and publish it. Until then, Jaime Maussan's article can link to this 2023 renamed Mexican Congress article or its hoaxing allegation section on the mummies.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 11:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Rename per above. Jp2593 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 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.