Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related government personnel


 * 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. WjBscribe 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

List of alleged UFO-related government personnel

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete utter uncited listcruft. Maybe a category instead, but probably not even that. -Docg 11:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 11:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - every single person here is has had a UFO-related phenomenon, I have double checked in all their articles, and it happened while they were a government personnel (note that i created the article). The article really helps clarify and make it easy access for those interested, and I feel adds to the WikiProject_Paranormal (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If kept, all persons included on the list would need citations per WP:BLP. If we have uncited lists on the basis that there are citations elsewhere, then we end up with problems when people add to it. Further, why can't this be a category.--Docg 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation has been provided (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Not very big at present, but could be monumentally expanded into a much more concise resource. It brings together desperate people people with a unique commonality together and provides a central resource for accessing them. The very description of a classic list. - perfectblue 14:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The title vastly exaggerates the facts. If someone says he saw a mysterious light in the sky, that might be put in a list of "People who say they saw UFOs" but the present title implies they went to meetings with them, vacationed on the planet Mongo, etc. Edison 15:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the accusations involved in regards to some of them (Truman and Eisenhower, to name two) far exceed that.
 * these official dealt directly with what they claimed to be UFO-related phenomena, not some random light or planet vacation, it is explained in their articles (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, if and only if, citations are provided for entries; May need a rename though ... J. D. Redding 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "dealt with phenomena" is ambiguous and unreferenced. Edison 07:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Edison and List guideline. --Pjacobi 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which particular aspect of the list GUIDELINE (not a policy, incidentally) are you arguing this list violates, Pj? -Eep² 20:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTE. -Eep² 20:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and start getting Sources immediately. Alleged means someone SAID something, right? --Chr.K. 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 12:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "alleged". Enough said.  Anyone here heard of WP:BLP?  WP:OR?  In any case, there is not encyclopaedic topic "ufo related government personnel" (and if there were it would probably be encyclopaedic only in the minds of a few delusional individuals) so this fails the indiscriminate test.  We do not keep crap about living individuals on the basis that one day it might be sourced, either. Also, define "related".  Does anyone working at NORAD get listed, because their job is identifying things which are as yet unidentified?  As we all know, to a very close approximation 100% of things that start off as unidentified flying objects rapidly become identified flying objects.  Guy (Help!) 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a tabloid.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP, WP:NOT and WP:OR. This is not a place to keep indiscriminate lists of allegations. -- Kesh 06:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete maybe merge some worthy stuff into respective article Bulldog123 10:33, 10 May 2007 (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.