Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ufologists


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Ufologists

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Since there is no standard qualification for what makes a ufologist, it is irresponsible and impossible for Wikipedia to construct a "list" of them. What would constitute a reliable source for what makes person X a "ufologist" and person Y "not a ufologist"? Since this isn't a subject that is recognized as existing in academia, Wikipedia should not be trying to demarcate who is and isn't one who studies this subject. We don't have a List of Magicians of the Dark Arts or a List of Klingon linguists for similar reasons. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment But we do have a List of obese actors in United States cinema (I do like that one!) and I'm pretty sure there's no RS for that either. I can conceive of a selection crietria such as "self described as..." or "has published works in the field of ..." or similar for such cases. It might be difficult to construct the criteria for such a list; it certainly is not 'impossible'. MadScot (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between someone belonging to two different groups (US actors, the obese) which verifiably exist and someone belonging to a group (ufologists) whose group membership cannot be verified. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - There may not be a scientific definition of Ufologists, but WP does mention them here and Wiktionary defines them too. I don't see the mere use of the word Ufologist as a reason for deletion.   SIS   21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If they have articles here, and are described as ufologists, they're appropriate for this article. The topic is adequately defined for the purpose. DGG (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. You can say that of almost any list of people by occupation or hobby (only for some professions in some countries are there "standard qualifications"). --Itub (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly reasonable list. --Michig (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as the inclusion criteria consider that studying Ufology is prominent to the people mentioned. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:26, 1 October 2008 (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.