Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contact Consequences


 * 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 of the debate was Delete 14 delete/4 keep (77.77...% to delete) Jtkiefer T  20:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Contact Consequences
Is not sutiable for Wikipedia and may be a hoax article. Kerowyn 04:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete personal essay --Trovatore 04:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * delete as original research (edited previous comment to remove section header; this messes with afd). &mdash; brighterorange (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong delete because it's one big, false dilemma fallacy, made of original research. It's not encyclopedic, contains POV material, and needs to be totally reformatted. I hope this is a hoax. 70.27.59.200 06:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer T  20:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obviously not verifiable, original research. —Cleared as filed. 09:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: Incorrect title, original research, personal essay. Geogre 10:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is part of a series of original research articles that included . It propounds a novel synthesis of ideas as to what "could happen" in the event of first contact (science fiction), without citing any sources to demonstrate that such a synthesis has already been accepted into the corpus of human knowledge, and is exactly the sort of thing that our no original research official policy is intended to prevent.  The place for publishing this is the author's own web site. Delete. Uncle G 10:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Although the article has been modified to address the subject more from the point of view of what scenarios science fiction writers envision, no effort has been made to cite sources demonstrating that the article is not original research, the concern that I expressed above. We have articles on themes encountered in fiction. See Government Warehouse, for example.  Note that they cite sources demonstrating that the idea is not a novel one unique to its creator or to Wikipedia. Also, as Just zis Guy, you know? points out, if the intent is to cover what science fiction writers consider to be the possible consequences of first contact, this is territory that is already covered properly (citing the opinions of specific science fiction authors) in first contact (science fiction), and (since there's nothing to merge) this is now at most a redirect. Uncle G 17:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete --Syrthiss 13:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep in current form. As long as it doesn't stray in to Original Research again, it looks reasonable. --Syrthiss 14:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete speculative, unverifiable, unencyclopaedic, and - worse still - boring. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Unencyclopedic. Martial law, if you want to defend this article please improve it.  I doubt that's possible but you have five days to try. Durova 19:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP . Where is provision elsewhere for those of us that are devoutly religious who believe that aliens are Satan's minions and that those that run the world are evil people are cooperating with them ? I've encountered people like this in my travels.Martial Law 20:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per Uncle G. Full of predictions on what "will" happen if humanity encounters aliens with one of two anthropocentric assumptions.  Simplistic speculation that I could have written better in junior high school.  Unsourced except one cranksite which the author seems to treat as authoritative.  Barno 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it be practical to merge this with the OCP article regarding alien contact ?
 * What is there to merge? &mdash; Haeleth Talk Merging not necessary. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 11:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete original research. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep in its cleaned-up form; it now seems to be a good overview of the subject that contains relevant links to the more specific discussions of various scenarios. I would encourage others who voted "delete" to reconsider. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 11:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Do any other articles consider those who are religious, those(hopefully a few) who may want vengeance concearning the Robertson Panel's recomendations ? That is why I am asking that this article is NOT deleted.Martial Law 00:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC) (double vote by user)
 * Vengeance? That's an odd choice of word. In any case, the article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. The other articles on the possibilities of alien life and the like already address the possibilities of extraterrestrial contact. Delete Kerowyn 01:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Preaky 04:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete --Westernriddell 06:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The article certainly needs a ton of work, but the subject  is valid.  Far from a hoax, it has often been the subject of discussion and is the focus of many works of fiction.  Let the Cleanup Taskforce have a go at it. Canderson7 22:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research. *drew 23:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Speculation. Original research is a somewhat grand word for this. Trollderella 02:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with First Contact because the subject is valid; (countless sci-fi works deal with this theme... War of the Worlds, Close Encounters of the Third Kind etc. Intersofia 16:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I have moved discussion to this vote's talk page. Please continue the discussion there.  RasputinAXP  T    C  19:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect as per Uncle G above. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 11:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is effectively a religion to some folks and deserves the same careful NPOV as articles on other theological concepts. Yes, it needs sources, but from the looks of it those should be available. I just heard a Harvard professor on NPR discussing her extensive interviews with "contactees", whom she carefully and NPOVely described as deluded. That shows to me that the field has been properly studied and that "pro and con" material is available. If this article doesn't improve in a few days then I'd be happy to delete it but I think there is room for growth. Wikipedia has the opportunity for being a rare NPOV source on the alien abduction faith. -Willmcw 12:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How can something as horrific as a alien abduction be a religion, See Malevolent alien Abduction Research's website about the real alien agenda. Thats like forming a religion around a cruel rapist. Because a deceptive agenda is indicated, I say this is a STRONG KEEP.Martial Law 08:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, here we are; the MAAR's website is the "cranksite" I had in mind. How can you verify the "real" "alien agenda"?  Your opinions ("horrific") and conclusions ("deceptive agenda" leading somehow to "strong keep") are not valid criteria of what is or isn't encyclopedic.  If we see verifiable evidence that many people are following a religion based on alien abduction, then we'll keep an NPOV article documenting that.  No change of vote for this article.  Barno 19:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Some of the keep and merge votes above are on the basis that (as rewritten) the article covers something which has at least some validity as a subject. I don't dispute that, but I would draw people's attention to the following articles:
 * Abduction Phenomenon, which covers the subject of belief in alien abductions
 * First contact (science fiction) which covers the issue of first contact and its coverage in science fiction
 * Unidentified flying object which covers the subject of possible alien visitors in our time
 * I stand by my original view; although this article has now been completely rewritten into something which is at least encyclopaedic, the topic itself is adequately covered in these other articles, and I am not persuaded of the need for another article. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you suggest an appropriate article to possibly merge it into? -Willmcw 10:08, 16 November 2005 (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.