Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodiak Island UFO incident


 * 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. Discussion of the sourcing suggests that this doesn't have enough reliable sources to pass GNG Spartaz Humbug! 04:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Kodiak Island UFO incident

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously deleted several years ago under a different title, see Articles for deletion/Kodiak Island UFO sighting Recreated earlier this year by the same user who created the deleted version, using mostly the same sources, but it appears to have one or two not used last time and has been rewritten somewhat, so re-nominating here instead. For the same reasons as last time, that this was barely noted by the local press, ignored by the regional press such as the Anchorage Daily News and other nearby news organs, and mostly covered by UFO fansites. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: If this is deleted, there are also redirects at Kodiak Island UFO, 2007 and Kodiak Island UFO Incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete - Though could be classified as very notable within the fringe, there are so few reliable sources covering this that it can't be defined as notable by WP standards. There isn't even enough local coverage to be defined as significant. Note to the closing administrator, if this is deleted it should also be removed from here. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page isn't my property; I scrounged up as much as I could for related research articles as humanly possible. Who knows, maybe it doesn't have the quantity that it deserves. Since it's been more than four years, that's not likely to change. However, I am moving for it to be kept, due to the fact that it does contain invaluable information, such as the YES2 examination from authorities and how it was to be considered in relation. I recreated this several years after you went after it, Beeblebrox, and this wasn't out of rebellion or what-not; I feel there is better information contained this time and this page keeps this information well-placed and signifies Wikipedia's use as a resource. This page well-constructed, aside from the light references. However, if it were deleted, you won't see or hear of it again, since I'm not interested in some defiant edit-war. D arth B otto talk•cont 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I count two refutable references. The rest are compatible and usable, so this page should only need a clean-up, not a deletion. D arth B otto talk•cont 19:06 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the link to the YES2 page used a reference. I didn't see any mention of this incident. One of the other new sources is a page from NICAP, which also does not mention this incident. I wouldn't really consider NICAP a reliabe source anyway. So you see, this isn't about me and you, it is about the notability of this incident and whether it meets Wikipedia's minimum standards for inclusion. Nothing brought with to the table with this new version overcomes the same problems that led to the previous deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't think NICAP is reliable, you could nominate that for deletion, as well. D arth B otto talk•cont 21:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. I didn't say it wasn't notable, I said it was not a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I admit my reply snide and off-topic. But, I want to emphasize that I don't believe bulldozing every issue encountered is the best way of addressing matters. I have dug deep and concluded that what I found when I created this newest iteration of the article is all the notability I could scrape together. If this subject cannot find enough fuel to power itself, then so be it.
 * I do, however, have a compromise that I hope would work for both our angles; I'd support having this event mentioned in a the fact section of the Kodiak page and having this link, as well as the other re-direct pages merged with Kodiak, so it will need only one reference. The complications of the blank, reliable sources would be gone, you won't see this article again and I'd be satisfied with seeing it mentioned as a fringe event and interesting fact. Could a compromise like that work? D arth B otto talk•cont 04:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I afraid I don't see that as good solution. As it stands now the only reliable source that specifically mentions this incident is the article in the Daily Mirror. So, by your line of reasoning anything mentioned once in the local paper would need to be included in the article. That's not a good idea. It doesn't even appear to have much local notability given that the local paper of record apparently never mentioned it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, there's enough reliable source coverage here for an article to remain. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's one mention in the local paper. Then we have the unreliable sources, one About.com page, two mentions on UFO sites, one mention on Busika, which appears to be user generated content. Lastly we have the page from ESA which does not mention this incident in any way. So, in reality the only reliable source we have that actually mentions this topic is a single article in a local paper. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like I picked some random article from the European Space Agency. But last time I checked, the article at hand contained a critical piece of information that made local authorities investigate it. True, it's only implied in the local paper and they did not mention the UFO again, but it was a UFO incident and may be counted as such. In regards to your reply to my ultimatum, the reason I have pushed for this article's existence and not every other newspaper article is because it was a phenomenon; it was out of the ordinary and never was explained. The reason why an MSNBC article about the light show 425 miles from Roswell yesterday hasn't been created is because it was easily debunked as skydivers with flares and as attractive as it was, could not be counted as phenomenal. This, however less coverage was made available, was a phenomenon and mystery and could be open to an article. D arth B otto talk•cont 04:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I was not clear. The items that do not mention this particular incident are not relevant to this discussion because we are discussing the notability of this topic. If a reference does not actually mention this topic, it is not relevant for as far establishing notability regardless of what other merits it may have.
 * I understood you fine, and I can testify that the ESA YES-2 article does not mention the incident, (which is understandable). However, I do counter-balance that fact with the reasoning that it is a supportive piece that corresponded with the authorities' investigation, which was a critical part of this irregularity, as without that, this article would have as much notability as someone seeing a shooting star or satelite. And what issue does the About.com have? I mean, it is specified by the website to be supported by specialists, unless I am misunderstanding its contextual value. And you pointed NICAP out as something you don't think is a reliable reference. Is that not a subject of opinion, or is this something that Wikipedia has formally blacklisted? D arth B otto talk•cont 07:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether NICAP is a reliable source or not is really relevant, I only mentioned it as an aside. They disbanded before this incident and so the referenced page has the same issue as the ESA page, no mention of this incident. About.com does not appear to me to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, in that there does not appear to have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking, just a bunch of self-proclaimed experts. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe we've said all that needs to be said, then. D arth B otto talk•cont 23:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There is only one acceptable source, the Kodiak Daily Mirror, that deals with this event. That is local coverage. The other references are not WP:RS (BTW, I haven't been able to access the Claerr article, link broken. The Kodiak Daily Mirror link doesn't work for me either, but I trust that its real). The ESA reference does not address this incident. I'm not satisfied that the subject sufficiently meets the guidelines of "Significant coverage" in WP:GNG and inclusion criteria in WP:EVENT that the presumption of notability should be sustained. LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:09, 6 November 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.