Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ademar José Gevaerd


 * 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. Although there are still many sources in this article which are not reliable by WP standards, there are an equal number which are. These sourcing issues, as well as unsourced or poorly sourced claims, should be dealt with outside of this AfD. The evidence presented in a variety of reliable sources is enough to qualify as WP:Verifiability of potentially contentious claims, which themselves display that the subject meets WP:BIO. As it stands the nominator's main issue, has been proven incorrect and all delete votes appear to be based off of this (now) erroneous claim PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ademar José Gevaerd

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO. jps (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete due to a lack of references to reliable independent sources in the article. I see Spanish language news mentions, but am not in a position to evaluate their reliability. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you are not in a position to evaluate the potential sources (most of which seem to be in Portuguese) then how are you in a position to make an informed !vote? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Because the article is an unreferenced biography of a living person and I made a good faith effort to find reliable sources without success. In addition, I do not consider this process to be "voting" but rather a discussion about policy leading toward consensus.  I will be glad to withdraw my recommendation if anyone establishes notability through references to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A search for sources shows plenty in Portuguese (Google translate to the rescue), some in English. I have added a "find sources" above for his name without the "José", which gives more results. The subject is clearly a big name in the UFO world, regularly brought in as a UFO expert on any TV / newspaper stories relating to UFOs and a regular speaker at UFO conferences. A notable ufologist, if there is such a word. I agree that the article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. I may add some content. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: unreferenced BLP. No indication that any sources "address the subject directly in detail", so no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some content from the "news" sources, and from one "scholar" source. There are also mentions in books, but only snippet views. A general web search would probably turn up a lot more. The subject is a leading and respected UFO expert in Brazil whose views are widely sought after by journalists writing UFO stories. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that is the problem (per Hans Adler below). All the news reports are simply getting a comment from Gevaerd on this or that issue -- resulting in very biased coverage. We just get Gevaerd's side of the story. There are no sources analysing or commenting on Gevaerd. As I said above: "No indication that any sources 'address the subject directly in detail'" -- therefore no "significant coverage" & no notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have not examined the sourcing situation, but as currently written the article is not a biography but a coatrack for pushing UFO beliefs. Hans Adler 07:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the first two CV-type sources, I just went through all the news sources for Ademar José Gevaerd, Ademar Gevaerd and A.J. Gevaerd and stuck in what I found in roughly chronological sequence - a fairly mechanical process. This is what the newspapers and magazines have said about the guy's views and activities. I am personally slightly skeptical about one or two of the assertions, but am not an expert on UFOs. The subject apparently is. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To the above comments, this is not an article about flying saucers and little green men. It is an article about someone who has made a career out of writing and talking about these subjects, and has received widespread media coverage. The coverage, which directly addresses the subject in considerable detail, demonstrates notability. The article describes his views and activities as reported by reliable independent sources. Many would say the views are ridiculous, but they are what have made the subject so well known. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is an article about what Gevaerd says "about flying saucers and little green men." If this topic indeed has "coverage, which directly addresses the subject in considerable detail", then what "analytic or evaluative claims" do these sources make (per WP:SECONDARY about Gevaerd and his work? Because the article contains nothing of this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article discusses the subject in terms of positions held, activities and statements as reported by reliable independent sources. Secondary sources often make analytic or evaluative claims about their subject, but are no less acceptable if they simply state the facts. A few of the sources do give opinions, but given the nature of the subject most prefer a deadpan form of reporting, as do I. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Only "positions held, activities and statements as reported" = NO DEPTH WHATSOEVER. Lacking any such analysis or evaluation, it is an inherently VERY BIASED article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Really these nominations without research have got to stop. This person easily meets requirements per the sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Per the sources?" ROFLMAO! Have you taken a look at the sources? The English ones are absolute junk, and what I've seen through Google Translate of the Portuguese ones to date doesn't give me much more faith in them (they appear to be puff pieces). So which of these sources would you most like to put forward as credible & detailed? Really these blind "per the sources" keep !votes have got to stop. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable for the statements made in the article. A press release for a movie is a reliable source for the cast of the movie, but not of course for an evaluation of the movie. A UFO magazine is a reliable source for a statement published in that UFO magazine, but not of course for the accuracy of that statement, and so on. Most of the sources are, of course, mainstream newspapers. It is reasonable to assume that when they report that so-and-so said such-and-such, that is factual. Whether such-and-such is true is a different question. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A PR blurb would generally considered only as a reasonable source for filling in details on a matter already discussed by third parties, not as a stand-alone source. A journal, self-published on the ISP-user webpage of one Andrew Milani (members.ozemail.com.au/~amilani) is ONLY usable for information on Milani himself, per WP:SELFPUB. "Most of the sources" appear to be credulous puff-pieces, simply regurgitating Gevaerd's claims without the slightest skepticism or attempt to scrutinise his claims. I don't know if this is because the newspapers in question are tabloid, or because the Brazilian media does not like the facts getting in the way of a good story, or what, but they do not come across as credible. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * O Globo, Jornal Pequeno, Sol, El Pais, O Mirante, or for that matter the San Jose Mercury News are typical mainstream newspapers. When they get a story about crop circles or mysterious lights in the sky, they write it up. When the UFO crowd launches a campaign for release of government information, they write that up too. Often the reporter will contact Gevaerd for a statement, since he is "Mr. UFO" in Brazil. I assume that when the Flat Earth Society holds a big meeting, they would write that up as well, reporting what the speakers said, and may not bother to point out that the Earth is not in fact flat. They assume some level of intelligence in their readers. Again, the article attempts to describe the person, his activities and opinions. The sources are reliable for that purpose. For example, he clearly did give his views in the Fastwalkers conspiracy-theory movie. I would not see that movie as a reliable source for an article on UFOs, but this is not an article on UFOs. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The independent reliable secondary sources mention the name of the person incidentally (The sources are actually trivial on the biography), but may or may not belong to the same person. There are no intersections of non-trivial information on the biography, so it should be deleted as Original research. Algébrico (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is clear that the Ademar Gevaerd who edits UFO magazine also runs the Brazilian Center for Flying Saucer Research (which shares the same website), is head of the Brazilian Committee of Ufologists and initiator of the "Liberdade de Informação Já!" campaign. Many of the sources mention two of more of these positions when introducing a quote from him. If there are any sources that do not list at least one of these positions, perhaps they are talking about some other prominent Brazilian ufologist with the same rather unusual name, so should be removed. But delete the entire article? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2010 (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.