Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Reed encounter


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Reed encounter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No WP:RS found for non-notable UFO claim. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - We can cover fringe theories and such if they are notable enough to have attracted non-fringe attention, such as a mainstream newspaper. Searches for any such reference have turned up nothing.  I also tried searching for Jonathan Reed as a psychologist... again, nothing.  Does not meet any notability guildelines.  Delete. Fieari (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The "encounter", which received plenty of publicity including exposure on the Art Bell show, has been shown by multiple sources to have been a hoax. Rather than gather these up in this comment, I can at least report that a google search for "John Bradley Rutter", which is "Jonathan Reed's" real name brings up several sources about the hoax. The article should not be kept as an example of an encounter or an example of a fringe theory. In fact, the section that describes the bogus encounter, which is a large part of the current article, should be entirely or almost entirely deleted. The article should be kept as an example of an elaborate hoax which did get widespread attention but which also was subsequently thoroughly debunked and discredited. The Google search turns up multiple mentions and appears to present adequate sourcing for the affair as a notable hoax. I may try to revise the article with the supporting citations soon, but I thought I should report what I found for consideration in case I do not get to it immediately. (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/jonathan_reed.htm is a link to a web site which exposed the fraud and discusses it in some detail.) Donner60 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I searched "John Bradley Rutter" on proquest news archives and on google news and came up completely empty, no hits at all. Am I using the wrong spelling?  should I omit the middle name?  I did find one strange book mentioning "John Bradley Rutter"   but it's self-published by Lulu (company).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ufowatchdog.com is not a WP:RS, being on Art Bell isn't a guarantee of article worthy notability. I searched "John Bradley Rutter" and still only came up with mention in fringe sources and lulu selfpub books. No coverage by mainstream sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no vested interest in this either way. As I said, I think this is not notable as some sort of prominent or unexplained UFO encounter but as a hoax which received some notice and then was debunked. I'll see what others think before working on the article. If the consensus is for deletion, so be it. If a consensus develops to keep and rewrite, I will work on it. Donner60 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * delete   a news archives search on proquest for "jonathan Reed" +  Extraterrestrial, then on jonathan Reed" + UFO got only 3 hits: an October 2005 mention in a  Seattle Times article about a UFO-believers convention, An out-of-this-world convention ; UFO believers tell extraterrestrial tales (color story about a convention); Oct 7, 2005 Irish Esaminer: UFO buffs tell of contact (includes some details of Reed's story);   and an 11 May 2015 debunking in the Express online edition: Man behind 'irrefutable UFO crash proof' linked to string of alien hoaxes.  That's not a lot.  I found 3 items on a google books search, none by notable authors, 2 were credulous, at least 1 of these self-published,  1 called itself "critical," all read like WP:SENSATION in book form.   No scholarly material or serious journalism found.  I am not seeing enough here to keep, but f it is kept I want to confirm Donner60s sense that this article needs a total rewrite, and to say that the title would ABSOLUTELY need ot be changed to something like Jonathan Reed allegation or Jonathan Reed hoax to indicate the lack of, er... reality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it were kept it would need a total rewrite to focus on the hoax, not on the fake encounter. A rewrite of the title also would be a good idea. It looks like the consensus is heading for deletion, however, and I am ok with that. I agree that the article as it is, even with the introductory material about it being a hoax, is not worthwhile. I do think the faked encounter and subsequent showing of a hoax have gained some notoriety, albeit since this is almost all from out of the mainstream sources, perhaps they don't make a case for notability even as a hoax. I am not changing my position, just acknowledging that I can see it not being the consensus. Donner60 (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The hoax isn't really notable. It's gotten a smattering of commentary but not the kind of significant coverage that we need. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2016 (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.