Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cape Girardeau UFO crash


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Cape Girardeau UFO crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable UFO incident. Simply no independent sourcing that identifies this event as worthy of WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As per the words from WP:FRIND, what is the "fringe theory" here? Are you claiming that for Wikipedia to cover this story, that there must be scientific evidence of a spacecraft?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I get five pages of news hits with "Cape Girardeau" and "UFO". Here are some on the first page pertaining to a 1941 incident (e.g., ), a 1967 incident (e.g. ), a 1973 incident (e.g. , , ), and a 1975 incident (e.g. ). This might be worthy of a redirect someplace, but I don't know if there is enough for a stand-alone article. - Location (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also found non-trivial coverage in a goofy pop culture book: . I think more serious coverage is warranted, though. - Location (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine that this falls under "original research", however, the back story behind this is that William Huffman of Red Star Baptist Church allegedly witnessed or responded to a UFO crash in Cape Girardeau in April of 1941; however, I found a number of news articles from the 1940s that indicate Huffman moved to Cape Girardeau in November of 1941. - Location (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * delete this "incident" is based on a claim of one individual who told his wife, who 40 years later told her daughter who then told some UFO fanatics. For an extraordinary claim, the sources are incredibly short of anything close to reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article used to have several references, which have been systematically removed from the article. These may not be reliable sources, but they support notability:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Girardeau_UFO_crash&diff=625444888&oldid=625444556
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Girardeau_UFO_crash&diff=625445063&oldid=625444985
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Girardeau_UFO_crash&diff=625445154&oldid=625445063 Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * no they dont. notablity is dependent upon reliable sources WP:42. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think WP:Notability is a better source on this topic. I'm going to restore the deleted references while we have this discussion, so that other editors can evaluate them. It seems odd to delete them before the discussion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * you apparently didnt read WP:N either: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a quote from the content policy, WP:V. It is a point that is not germane, as there is no dispute regarding the existence of a reliable third-party source for this topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC):Note:  This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * there is most certainly no evidence that there is any Reliable coverage of this incident. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To expand upon that, there is no reliable coverage of the alleged incident but there is reliable coverage of the allegation. The question is whether or not the coverage that exists is sufficient for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources, no underlying reliable story. Someone has related a story they were told by their grandfather. No significant coverage by reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability and properly describe the topic. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Literally, is the topic to you a "UFO crash"? If so, is that a problem with the title of the article, rather than with the story reported in the sources?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The theory of removing references and material before and during an AfD seems to come from the premise that AfD participants look only at the article before !voting, unaware that an absence of wp:notability cannot be determined by looking at the article.  The removal of references and material is evidence that the corresponding argument for deletion is insufficient on its merits.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * please refrain from insinuating that your fellow editors have failed to do due diligence before commenting. Remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I marked my edit "edit conflict", so no one can construe that your !vote influenced my comment. Your comment on the other hand, is concerning, as if you are commenting on other users, your comment would be an example as per the group notice of WP:NPA.  Please assert you were not commenting on other users; because otherwise, your comment is subject to being moved to your user page, refactored, or deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment to you was intended as a polite reminder. If you think I have acted inappropriately, please escalate to the appropriate noticeboard; this is not the place to discuss other users. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is good that we agree that this is not the place to discuss other users. Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Incubate or keep A look at the history of this article shows that there is article consensus that there are a number of reliable sources available, so incubation may be needed to restore the missing references.  Another point is that Wikipedia is not about TruthTM, but rather topics that have attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  Dewey defeats Truman is a classic example of a topic known to lack scientific evidence to support its veracity.  The one remaining reference in the current article shows that from the viewpoint of the world at large, this topic is one of the top four unsolved UFO cases.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * where is this consensus that there are " are a number of reliable sources available"? i am not seeing these reliable sources and certainly no consensus of reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Article consensus would be in the history of the article, as previously stated. Unscintillating (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * as previously stated, i see no reliable sources and no consensus of such. please specifically identify the sources and the consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be asking me to identify the consensus version of the article, which I would say is the version prior to the one that added the AfD notice, as there is certainly no consensus to leave that tag on indefinitely. Unscintillating (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * to clarify. you stated "there is article consensus that there are a number of reliable sources available," - I am asking you to show where there is consensus about reliable sources that you claim exists.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem to be asking me to identify the consensus version of the article, which I would say is the version prior to the one that added the AfD notice. I can get the date and the diff of that version if that would help.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So your position is that because these sat in the article for a while we should consider them a reliable source and that they somehow establish WP:GNG??
 * Pardon me, but I consider that position absurd. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that those sources are in the consensus version of the article? Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what I said was, "...there is article consensus that there are a number of reliable sources available...". As I recall there was also a dead link that was improperly removed, in fact, the next edit after removing the reference was to add the "notability" tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * if you have nothing other than the sources above and a dead link as your "reliable sources" to establish notability, then we are done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to put words in my mouth, I can do that by myself. For example, that word "notability" does not appear in my !vote to which your are replying.  Seems that I must repeat myself.  "The removal of references and material is evidence that the corresponding argument for deletion is insufficient on its merits."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what I said was, "...there is article consensus that there are a number of reliable sources available...". As I recall there was also a dead link that was improperly removed, in fact, the next edit after removing the reference was to add the "notability" tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * if you have nothing other than the sources above and a dead link as your "reliable sources" to establish notability, then we are done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to put words in my mouth, I can do that by myself. For example, that word "notability" does not appear in my !vote to which your are replying.  Seems that I must repeat myself.  "The removal of references and material is evidence that the corresponding argument for deletion is insufficient on its merits."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the "dead link", . Unscintillating (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * that is not the "dead link" from the article. the "dead link" from the article is in fact this "dead" link http://www.ozarkssentinel.com/missouris-ufo-crash-preceded-roswell-by-six-years.html/ good for you that you managed to find a copy of it on the wayback but to "scare quote" imply that someone removed an actual link under a false edit summary that it was "dead" is pretty low. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage consists of regional news items with a focus on claims made by Harley Rutledge. Not really enough for its own article, but it may be appropriate to have summaries of the various Girardeau UFO sightings at Harley Rutledge. OK, it looks like there are actually several separate claims of various "UFO crashes" connected to Cape Girardeau. But the one this article concerns seems to have been originated by Leonard Stringfield. And I can't find a preponderance of reliable sources that show it's notable enough for its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Two additional news stories have been added as references. If three independent news organizations have decided this is notable enough and credible enough to cover, that seems like evidence that this is a notable topic. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * wikipedia is not the news. the IB times itself is not a reliable source on this subject as their article lead proclaims to be about 4 cases that have not been explained and includes Roswell which most certainly has been explained. and the two that have been added are not actually "news" they are the local "human interest filler" fluff - Tyler Texas news "East Texans Shares "Family Secret" Of UFO Sighting" and Cape Girardeau new "Close encounters of the Heartland kind" = local woman has urban legend she is promoting. (and note that one of them did not even put enough research and editing to capture a spell check conversion of the woman's name from "Charlotte Mann" to "Charlotte man"--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A 1941 story is still being reported in 2006 in the regional newspaper, link, and you are arguing that this is news reporting? By that argument we need to remove everything subsequent to 1941 from the encyclopedia, since it is just news.  Your personal opinion that the Roswell case is "most certainly" "explained" is not from a reliable source, and is in any case a matter of interpretation.  Noticing that the transcript of a TV report spelled "Mann" as "man" is probably worth mentioning, but it does not change the substance, which is repeated in our other mainstream sources.  One of the points made in that 2008 report from Tyler, Texas is, "The UFO crash of 1941 in Missouri continues to be researched and investigated today. So far, the story has been included in two books and one documentary."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to pin your argument of notability on an article that gives precedence to a story about a two headed rat snake, then by all means go ahead. but regurgitated "news of the weird" is not WP:GNG . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So now you don't dispute that the sources are reliable, but this is silly-season filler? Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough reliable references to have an entire article to itself. Goblin Face (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So there are some reliable references? Which are the ones you consider reliable?  What is unreliable about the others?  If not an entire article, where should it be a partial article?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to readers 2Over0 has reverted my last post.  The edit remains in the edit history, and contains content relevant to this discussion regarding WP:DEAD LINK, as well it identifies as off-topic two comments and as a personal attack one comment.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:TPO states, with emphasis in original, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning".  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment 2Over0 started a discussion on my talk page, but when I asked a question he/she has not replied.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment 2Over0 has administrative rights.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The irony here is that you were refactoring other people's posts improperly: . Take it to ANI if you have a problem. - Location (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Having commented prior to reverting the inappropriate refactoring, I am WP:INVOLVED here; my admin flag is irrelevant. Location says everything else that needs to be said here. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is insufficient coverage of the allegation - and that is all this is - in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to form a stand-alone article. Regarding those few reliable sources that do exist, I have no objection to placing this material in Leonard Stringfield as per 's argument above. - Location (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2014 (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.