Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grasdorf plates


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Grasdorf plates

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article fails to address WP:GNG with reliable sources. Checking GBooks, the Grasdorf Plates are mentioned in a couple of sensationalist books such as "Almanac of the Infamous, the Incredible, and the Ignored" which are in the business of puffing up poorly sourced UFO encounters into something that the incredulous might want to buy and tales of these events in dubious sources are not a rationale for encyclopaedic notability unless with verifiable wider impact. I find no impact on GNews and no evidence in the sources available that the plates were authenticated as being of historic interest or more than modern fakes. Fæ (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Its a legitimate mystery. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. The plates may be, indeed, almost certainly are, modern fakes, however the effort and expense gone into the hoaxmakes them noteworthy in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnemyPartyII (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as one might treat gossip stories about celebrities, encyclopaedic value is demonstrated by multiple reliable sources, not self promotional, speculative and hyper incredulous publications. If this story and the basic facts of it were to have some evidence of national press interest around the time, then I would have no problem with the article. Fæ (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any sources that could be considered reliable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless someone comes up with some suitable sources in the meanwhile, but without multiple reliable sources this doesn't seem to belong here. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2011 (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.