Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Cahill 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  13:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Cahill encounter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Claim of alien abduction with no assertion of notability over the myriad other claims; poorly sourced with much WP:Original research and speculation tacked on; no significant online coverage of the incident from WP:Reliable sources. As the article itself notes: "It was strange that this abduction is very little known. No press got ever involved in the case, and the only investigating team is the PRA, led by John Auchlettl". Proposed deletion contested by page creator. Scopecreep (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although the only two references currently in the article are to self-published sources, it is mentioned in reliable sources here here and here. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I suspect that this is going to be kept, although personally I think that if there's going to be an article on this subject then it'd be easiest to torch what we have and rewrite from scratch. The tone is appalling, the sources provided by the author are incredibly flimsy and it reads like there's no authoritative information on the subject. Which there might not be, after all, given that this might as well be a ghost story that someone and their acquaintances made up one day. As a gauge of quality, it might be worth comparing this article to that of the Rendlesham Forest incident. The author removed the prod tag asserting that Google returned a large number of hits for "kelly cahill". Google's hit counter is notoriously unreliable: for example, it estimated 418,000 hits for "kelly cahill encounter" but ran out non-duplicates after 524. Besides, although notability is a necessary attribute for the subject of an article, it is not sufficient in itself to justify one. What is also needed is reliable sources, and these seem few on the ground.
 * My gut instinct says delete and wait to see if anyone decides to build a sturdier article as a replacement (if that's possible), but then my gut is a deletionist: an article like this could be a problem. Brammers (talk/c) 08:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article presents this nonsense as having probably happened. WP:TNT is in order, even if this is somehow notable. The first and third of the books StAnselm found appear to regard alien abductions as being factual, so they're no reliable sources in my view even if a reputable publisher was silly enough to publish them. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I doubt a rewrite is possible. This is just one woman's made-up story that got zero coverage in mainstream media. I agree with Nick that books presenting alien abductions as fact don't count as reliable sources. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for the lack of independent reliable sources that discuss that event from a neutral point of view. If they exist, a rewrite is possible. Cavarrone (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dandenong Foothills Encounter. The big mistake i've made here is to create an article which is already in the Afc. Kj plma (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or best be Rewritten. It is mentioned in the revision history here and there it cite a news  written by 1999 News World Communications, Inc. and 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning, pointing out that the famous ufologists Robert Swiatek and Budd Hopkins knew this case. Kj plma (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you understand that "famous ufologists" hold no credibility here? The whole article was rubbish. I don't know where you got the content from, but I've seen little content in Wikipedia that was worse. The geography was deplorable (I fixed the state. You were out by 2,000km!), and writing it as if it definitely happened is just wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete My reasons are above. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it stays, it will have to be rewritten, not according to UFOlogist publications but from the (mostly Australian) news coverage, which treats the story of Kelly Cahill (apparently not her real name, she refuses to provide her real identity) much less enthusiastically. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Nick-D, wide-eyed UFO marks cannot be relied upon as indicators of notability - if they enjoy the story, they're likely to report it as factual and significant. I see no evidence of wider media coverage, impact upon popular consciousness or even perceived importance among paranormal investigators. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 11:25, 22 May 2012 (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.