Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British UFO Research Association


 * 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   no consensus, default to keep.  Sandstein  10:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

British UFO Research Association

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

Fails WP:ORG. No third-party, mainstream outside sources recognize it as notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep They pop up in the news quite a bit as one of the leading British Ufological organisations, especially given the current UK UFO flap (granted the vast majority are fire lanterns but that doesn't detract from their being the people who are turned to for an opinion). See for example . I'm not sure how you'd insert such things into an article (or if you should) but it does demonstrate their status. (Emperor (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Delete members have certainly been quoted in several reasonably reputable publications including The Times, The Telegraph and The Daily Mail. However I can't find anything about the actual organisation itself organisation itself from any reliable sources (except for on their website) and I don't think there's anything upon which an article could realistically be based. The article referenced above from the Louth Leader does give one descriptive sentence about the group but not knowing anything about the publication and basing my opinion on the style and tone I do not know if it would be regarded as a reliable source (with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy) or as a local newspaper which typically aren't. Guest9999 (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep That few sources have so far been found/used to fully demonstrate BUFORAs notability should not suggest that they aren't there. It can, perhaps, drift into being an unprovable point that a certain person, place or thing is "notable" since every definition is different. But, as Emperor notes, BUFORA is a (the) notable British UFO organisation, and absolutely ought to have a page. Stick notes about "improving sourcing" and the like on the page, but don't delete it out of hand. ntnon (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Its a good article, does not deserve to be deleted. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 13:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comment not notable enough for an independent article in my humble opinion, and the article says they're mainly based on the internet now.  Having said that, there's a whole category of these groups, most of which I doubt are technically notable per numerous or in depth mentions in WP:RS- . Sticky Parkin 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major organisation in its field, as shown by the demonstration of the extent to which they are quoted. it's not the best of criteria, but in this instance the notability seems sufficiently shown. DGG (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my possibly careless reading, but how has it been shown that they are extensively quoted [in reputable sources]? Bongomatic (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely if members of an organisation are quoted because of their association with that organisation, that's (de facto) the organisation being quoted, ergo... [That would be my understanding/interpretation of Guest9999's - anti! - point.] ntnon (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it demonstrated that they were quoted because of their association with the organization, not their interest in the field. If there were a particle physicist quoted on a particle physics topic, and he were a member of Association of Nude-Skydiving Particle-Physicists, would that be evidence for the notability of that group (not that there wouldn't be plenty of other evidence for that proposition!)? Bongomatic (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Association and interest are hand-in-hand, though. And your analogy - while amusing! - is clearly flawed: if Particle Physicist A - who worked on the large hadron collider - is quoted on large hadron colliders, we can rationally assume that PPA was chosen over PPB because of that association. Similarly, there are all manner of parties interested in UFOs, but that one affiliated with BUFORA is chosen to be quoted (and this is either known, or more tellingly noted), then the link is palpably clear. ntnon (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have nothing against WP articles about UFOs or UFO organizations--but they should be cited notable UFOs and UFO organizations. Bongomatic (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per DGG, and the mentions it receives in the press. Some of these aren't, this one it appears is. rootology ( C )( T ) 06:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable organization as demonstrated by the frequency with which its identified members are quoted as experts on the subject.  Ford MF (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2008 (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.