Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Klarer


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Klarer

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

Despite the claims of being South Africa's most famous contactee, I could not verify this to anybody except UFO fansites and the like. I'm not convinced she has received all that much in the way of third-party reliably sourced attention. Thus, she fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move the external links into inline citations. It has several good references, including the lengthy Pravda article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources seem reliable to me, even the Pravda article. Pravda.ru is not the same organization as the Pravda that Wikipedia has an article on, and its articles seem to be more opinion than fact. The book is clearly fringe, and not a reliable source. Theymos (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe that Pravda.ru is the same organization; it's just diverged that much from its past. They're Russia's answer to Weekly World News but with more credulity less tongue-in-cheek. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling them the same as Weekly World News is original research. The current headlines from Pravda are: Russia’s new international role becomes its biggest achievement in 2008; Israel launches massive military operation against Gaza Strip; and Military expenditure increases dramatically all over the world. Change of ownership and change of editorial style still make United Press International a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it is less than a tabloid, specially in "science" reporting, but it is not the same Pravda, the article for Pravda says: There is an unrelated Internet-based newspaper, Pravda Online (www.Pravda.ru) run by former Pravda newspaper employees. Having some employees in common hardly makes for "same organization", in particular because Pravda was the official organ of the CPSU, which ceased to exist in 1991. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors may determine that a particular source is better than another without "engaging in original research". WP:OR relates to article content specifically and exclusively and tossing that term around to describe discussions on a source is non-sensical. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Your confusing truth with verifiability. It doesn't matter if it is in the National Enquirer, so long as the publication has editorial control. The top stories in the current Pravda are: Russia’s new international role becomes its biggest achievement in 2008; Israel launches massive military operation against Gaza Strip; and Military expenditure increases dramatically all over the world. Having an article on a fringe topic doesn't make you a fringe source, anymore than when the Associated Press, and Reuters, and CNN have their "wacky stories" sections. Wacky, doesn't mean unreliably sourced, it just means wacky. When a wacky story is covered by more than one independent source, it is then a notable story. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:FRINGE, when a wacky story is covered by multiple "News of the Weird" outfits that does not make it notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote me a chapter and verse, don't just point me to the bible, and say: "All the answers are in here". Maybe to you the New York Times is the same as "News of the World", you have to find official policy that says Pravda is an unreliable source. When Wikipedia issues a burn notice, that source is blacklisted and the domain name can't appear in references anymore, that hasn't happended to Pravda. The stories are no different than the Associated Press, and Reuters, and CNN "wacky stories" sections. That Pravda carried them, just tells me that the folk story tradition is just as popular today in Russia as it was 200 years ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Arguments on reliability of provided sources are convincing. However, if sources from within the UFO cults are produced, I will switch. Just because they are loony, does it mean they are without encyclopedic value as part of the human experience. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't believe Ms. Klarer was abducted and sexually assaulted by extraterrestrials, but do see ample reliable and verifiable coverage about the claims. That the events described occurred more than 50 years ago in a part of the world not covered as well as other parts of he English-speaking world would indicate that there are likely systemic bias issues that make finding additional reliable sources that much more challenging. The number and quality of sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--Meets wp:notable: Subject covered by the mainstream media, 1. Another site list her as one of South Africa women who made their mark.--Jmundo (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep though I would say otherwise if it were a BLP and the pravda.ru site were the only source. The comparison was made above to the National Enquirer, and I think neither of them usable unsupported for controversial BLP. But she's no longer alive, and there are other sources. DGG (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   —Artw (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I was living in South Africa when she died and I remember her death being major news. Sadly, a great deal of the South African media is not accessible via the Internet. However, what is available in this article satisfies WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sadly New Jersey news isn't even archived. There are at least 6 major New Jersey papers, and none appear to have a permanent archive. I have to get my New Jersey News from the New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2009 (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.