Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged aircraft–UFO incidents and near misses


 * 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   merge to List of UFO Sightings. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 22:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

List of alleged aircraft–UFO incidents and near misses

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inappropriate title: "near misses" suggests that aircraft/UFO collisions are possible. The majority of this article is unsourced or sourced to fringe sites e.g. "ufologie.patrickgross.org" and/or duplicates of items contained in list of reported UFO sightings. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge with List of UFO Sightings There is some notable content here that should probably be retained - but I'm not clear why this has to be split off from the other list article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of UFO Sightings as said above. It doesn't matter or not whether something is 'real' - if it's notable under our fringe guidelines then it can be suitable for inclusion. UFOs being very culturally significant, their inclusion in the encyclopedia is important, not to mention that UFO =/= little green men. All that said, we've already got a spot for this information and anything in this article either is or can be included there. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge as already suggested, with the caveat that the only entries that appear to be cited to remotely reliable sources are those referenced to The Telegraph and The Scotsman. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (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.