Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of government responses to UFOs


 * 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.  Syn  ergy 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

List of government responses to UFOs

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

Fringe soapbox, article is redundant to Category:Government responses to UFOs.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. A clear-cut case. Nsk92 (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Neutral. Have to read-up on how lists and categories are to be treated. Nsk92 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Lists are complementary to categories and are not superseded by them - see WP:CLS. There are lots of blue links here and there is no fringe editorialising as the nomination misleadingly suggests. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It will be a civil fashion if you lay-off your carefully guided snide comment and thinly veiled insult. You are saying there is no fringe here. Are you suggesting there are extraterrestrials behind UFOs?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article lists numerous official government investigations of these phenomena. Their status, by definition, tells us that they are not fringe.  I have no particular views on their findings but recent news reports about the Bebo signal indicate that it would be prudent to keep watching the skies. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Instead of arguing about the existence of UFOs, someone should find a policy on notability of lists ( or list and category redundancy or something ). Categories,_lists,_and_navigational_templates says lists and categories are complementary.  There is no editorializing or POV so WP:Soapbox doesn't apply. It's just a list and it's not named List of Government coverups of UFOs.  I read WP:Fringe and I don't see how it applies. Please point out what specifically is wrong with this list.     Drunken Pirate (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Drunken Pirate. Neither fringe nor a soapbox. By the way, if you're assuming that the name of the list implies the existence of UFO's, and if you're implying that this is POV...well, if something is unidentified, if it's flying, and if it's an object, then it is, by definition, a UFO. I realize that there is a sense in which "UFO" has become synonymous with "flying saucer from Mars," but technically, were it to be identified as such, its status as a UFO would be diminished to the extent that it became an IFO. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also, lists and categories are meant to complement each other, per WP:CLN. "List-category redundancy" has never been a valid deletion criterion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as valid list. Some text should be added to make this list more useful.Biophys (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets every guideline I can find for lists. Agree with Biophys that a short descriptive for each list item would improve its usefulness.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:31, 13 August 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.