Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estimate of the Situation


 * 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 and redirect to Project Sign. Spartaz Humbug! 07:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Estimate of the Situation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a document for which we have only the credulous ravings of Ufologists to claim it exists. I cannot find any independent sources which document that this document actually was written. We can discuss the claims at Project Sign, but this standalone article is clearly in violation of WP:FRINGE jps (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Very much in two minds, I am not sure that "only being known to UFOlogosts" Means not notable, but by the same token its hardly going to be neutrally written. Given its length maybe merge with Project Sign.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be a famous conceit by UFO believers, but it is remarkable in the sense that this particular document does not seem to exist. Also, there seems to be a lot of reading between the lines in Ruppelt's book. The article as it stands borders on WP:HOAX, I would argue. Hard to disentangle. jps (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure it boarders on hoax, so much as being about a hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's weird, though. The article was created in 2005 and I'm not sure there was much written about this supposed document before then. Jerome Clark seems to be the origin of the hoax and it might be that the initial IP was him (the geolocation checks out). jps (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but this is from 2002 [], this form 1998 [], there are also earlier sources I cannot do a full preview off. But it does look very much like the document is a hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do any WP:RS state or speculate this is a hoax? Ruppelt is considered a Reputable source given his CV (Director of Grudge+Blue Book) and is the definitive source for many of those programs (his book is from 1956 and freely available here . His statements have been confirmed officially several times (Sign is an example of this- he was the first to disclose it). I am not aware of any statement he made that has been directly called into question by any WP:RS accusing him of being a hoaxer is WP:OR and unsubstantiated. Also, others have confirmed this document Whether we have enough material for a standalone article is another matter. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Tagged for half a decade, not going to be improved. At most, this merits a couple sentences in Project Sign, but they don't even have to be sentences from this article (so, delete rather than merge). Possibly squatting on a title that could have an article on a legitimate topic, depending on how much there is to say about the military term. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I made improvements to the article in November; see the history. Here's one example. I didn't take the tags off because there's a lot more cleanup to do. "Tagged for half a decade, not going to be improved" is incorrect. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Edward J. Ruppelt's book, much cited in the article, is the definitive word on the Air Force's response during the early years of the UFO panic, in the late 40s & early 50s. There was an Air Force document by Project Sign called "Estimate of the Situation" which said that UFO sightings were extraterrestrial; it was submitted and went up the chain of command until Air Force chief of staff General Vandenberg rejected the analysis, and the copies were destroyed or lost. After Ruppelt's book was published in 1956, UFO enthusiasts seized on the mention of the report being destroyed, and started speculating that there was some kind of important information in it that the Air Force was trying to suppress. This went on, as everything in UFO-world does, for decades and decades and is still being discussed today.
 * So: Ruppelt is a reliable source, and there are a lot of other UFO-skeptic reliable sources who have written about the conspiracy theory, including Curtis Peebles' 1994 book Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth (pp 31-34 about the report, 136-141 about the conspiracy theory). I agree that the current article needs some rewrites to put the speculation into more non-conspiracy-theory context, but WP:NEXIST says that notability is a property of the subject, not the article, and if there's significant coverage in existing RS, then the subject is notable. WP:ARTN adds that the current state of the article doesn't determine notability — if it's confusing or misleading, then the article should be edited, not deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Why should this article be kept separate from Project Sign given that it isn't even clear that such a document ever existed? jps (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone agrees that it existed. The speculation is about whether it was destroyed for conspiracy-theory reasons, or just routine reasons. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ! I don't think "everyone agrees" that it existed. This is the recollection of Ruppelt as to the contents of a standard document. It would be considered "hearsay" in court. It is not unreasonable to be concerned that Ruppelt may have been mistaken as to its existence or its contents (and, anyway, his summary of the contents is pretty simplistic). jps (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is of course the issue, maybe everyone in UFOolgy agrees that it existed, the problem is does any one outside it think so, it it notable outside its own bubble (or even in it, I can think of a few books on UFO's that make no mention of this)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources are iffy. There is not evidence of notability outside UFology, and none for it being independently notable from SIGN.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you call "UFology". There are a lot of credulous pro-UFO writers, as well as skeptics who have written about the history of the field. The skeptics are the reliable ones, like Curtis Peebles. Conspiracy theories that aren't true are still notable, if people believe in them and they're written about in reliable sources. I think the article deserves to exist because this is a conspiracy theory, and people searching for information about the real facts should be able to find them on Wikipedia, in detail. Otherwise, we're helping the conspiracy folks. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Conspiracy theories that aren't true are still notable, the problem is the  Conspiracy theory here is project sign.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Project Sign isn't a conspiracy theory. It has been confirmed by the US government as an official UFO program. See for example the CIA's own description of the program: official records have also been released. No "sign" of the estimate of the situation in the related documents though. Hence, the conspiracy theories. -- &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but the cover up, the alleged document all are part of a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory of which Sigh is the chief component.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a majority of WP:FRIND sources can be found to justify a stand alone article that is apart from Project Sign. Right now the sourcing is 99% ufologists or credulous ufo books, which reflects what these people think is important, but it's not a mainstream viewpoint. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Project Sign. This article sits at the tricky interface between "enough coverage to show it's notable" and "too heavily fringey quality of coverage to source a good article" - also known as That Friggin' Cryptozoology Battle here on WP (sigh...). Our fringe guidelines make it difficult to argue for a standalone article under these circumstances. Suggest merging to Project Sign, where treatment as a subtopic means that the sourcing requirements are more lenient and can probably be satisfied. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here are some newspaper sources that discuss the "Estimate of the Situation" document:
 * "Veil of Secrecy: Report on Unidentified Flying Objects Vanishes in Air Force Channels" by Clifford D. Simak, The Minneapolis Star (syndicated) (Dec 5, 1966)
 * "The UFO Report: Baffled brass sought easy answer to mystery" by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, The Vancouver Sun (Feb 18, 1978)
 * "Says U.S. hiding truth on UFOs" by Pam Sprague, Wausau Daily Herald (Dec 11, 1981)
 * "Flying Saucer Mystery Still Being Pursued" by George Earley, Hartford Courant (Oct 23, 1977)
 * There are more, but I'll stop at four. Sorry that these are paywalled on newspapers.com. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In UFO subjects, news articles are often flying foul of our rules against using WP:SENSATIONalism as a justification for notability. What we would want instead is something along the lines of a skeptic or scientist acknowledging the importance of this document per WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I already gave you that: Curtis Peebles' Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth, published by the Smithsonian Institution Press in 1994. I totally understand how difficult it is to keep the UFO articles free of nonsense and conspiracy, but it seems like you're dismissing every book about UFOs (both credulous and skeptical) as "UFOlogy" and every newspaper article as "sensationalist". Is it actually possible for any UFO-related topic to be notable under those standards? :) — Toughpigs (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am having a hard time reading the section of the Peebles book. It is not clear to me that he has done anything other than retell the Ruppelt narrative. Is that the only source he is using? If so, how does this speak to something meaningful enough to have a dedicated article? Why not just merge with Project Sign? jps (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agree with User:Toughpigs - Could live with Merge into Project Sign though. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Merge with whatever belief system this document is hallowed in.) GPinkerton (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: what happened to WP:CANVAS?! -- &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an appropriate notice per CANVASS: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The notification should be neutral and unbiased and not influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way: Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief. Clearly not the case here. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to debate that, take it to a notice board. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Project Sign due to the dearth of reality-based sources. Guy (help!) 19:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This was written in 2005 and been flagged for years. If it was going to be improved it would have been done years ago. Obviously not relevant. I'm okay with hoax's having Wikipedia pages, even non-existent papers that support the idea that creatures from outside our Solar System visited Earth and started messing with humans. I'm totally okay with that. But this is beyond the pale. Cleanup on aisle 9. Sgerbic (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2020 (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.