Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliens from Space: The Real Story of Unidentified Flying Objects


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. StarM 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Aliens from Space: The Real Story of Unidentified Flying Objects

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Simply not a notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails notability guidelines for books.  Matt  (  Talk  )   07:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   —Artw (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:JNN 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. It's an argument to avoid if it's not true. A lack of reliable sources about it, and no arguments of notability in the article, however, is a reason. ThuranX (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- there don't appear to be any substantial sources for this subject. Reyk  YO!  14:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since this was published more than 30 years ago it's difficult to find evidence of notability using online sources but I was able to find a large number of other works that cite this book. citations. Raitchison (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The lunatic fringe cites the lunatic fringe. That does not establish notability from reliable sources.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 16:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of these books are reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One I saw was reliable. But keep in mind that a mere citation or mention doesn't make something notable, multiple notable third party reliable source has to cover the topic in a nontrivial way. Nothing in that gives any indication of more than trivial attention paid by sources that are largely not significant. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Google Scholar finds three citations, they are all from very fringe sources wich don't appear to be notable. In google books it appears listed in UFO bibliography listings, but the description of its entry is exclusively about his author and his role on the NICAPexample. The fame of this book seems to be almost exclusively from being written by this guy, no real fame of its own. (no redirect, since the value of the redirect appears to be quite low, it's unlikely that someone writes all of the title with the correct capitalization in all the worlds, the search engine will find the author's page) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, the article contains no reliable sources independent of the subject that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure whether this book is notable or not, but I would question whether anyone has checked print sources from the year of publication of the book (1973) for reviews.  If there are adequate reviews, then the book is notable.  The book is widely cited, which suggests but does not prove notability. JulesH (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article makes no assertion of notability, and lacks sources outside the subject's own claims. And how many simialr vanity pressed 'tell-all about aliens' books are there? dozens? hundreds? ThuranX (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BK. The Amazon link shows that it is mentioned in books, but there is no way to tell how big of a mention is in the books. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as being way far away from Wikipedi's standards for notability. DreamGuy (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources can be found to establish book notability. At that point, it can always be recreated. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Evidence of the book's n0tability is lacking. Could be listed in the Donald Keyhoe article as one of his works. Edison (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, with anything salvageable going to Donald Keyhoe per Edison. 07:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy for now. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 04:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:BK & complete lack of third-party sourcing to establish notability.


 * 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.