Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operação Prato


 * 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   no consensus. Whether or not to keep the article hinges on whether the argument to delete (because the sources are insufficient and/or unreliable) or to keep (because the sources are sufficient) is stronger. There is not even a rough consensus as to whether the reliability of the sources is sufficient to retain the article. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Operação Prato

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be an entirely non-notable UFO flap. All of the sources we have available are of low quality, and almost certainly not WP:RS. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources on this article definitely fails WP:RS and no other sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ufo.com.br is the official website of Revista UFO, a magazine edited by noted ufologist Ademar José Gevaerd. It's been around since the 80's. Clearly passes WP:RS. A quick Google search resulted in even more reliable sources, which I'll add to the article to strengthen its relevance. Victão Lopes  Fala! 15:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: not to mention that it was subject of a 60-minute TV program by Rede Globo, Brazil's largest TV channel, and that episode is listed at the end of the page. Unlike what the comments above are trying to imply, it does passes WP:RS, with ease. Victão Lopes  Fala! 16:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: UFO magazines are rarely considered to be reliable sources given that they tend to be strongly biased towards a number of fringe theories. Is there a more mainstream source we might consider? --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: yes, I found and added three to the article. Victão Lopes  Fala! 19:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not think the sources you added are WP:RS. The Globo TV appears to be promotional in nature, it's basically advertising a TV show about UFOs. Ufo.com.br is a fringe site which promotes UFO content, and is not a reliable source. The Telefonica source is the briefest of mentions and does not count as substantial coverage. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Forgive me, Globo, Terra and Folha are RS. They're among the leading news companies in Brazil, they are used in tons of articles here, and I've never seen anyone questioning their usage as a source. That TV show is not about UFOs, it is about police and military-related events. Only that particular episode was about UFOs. Operação Prato was also subject of an episode of The History Channel's UFO Files, so now we've got two reliable and notable TV programs airing content about it for 60 minutes to a nation-wide audience. UFO.com.br promotes UFO content because it is focused on UFO content. Is Billboard magazine unreliable because it promotes music? Victão Lopes  Fala! 05:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. UFO TV shows and UFO web sites are never considered objective sources.23:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC) LuckyLouie (talk)
 * Comment: There are no UFO TV shows being used as sources, and the UFO websites are not the only ones. Victão Lopes  Fala! 01:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Global Aerospace Monitoring and Disaster Management Springer mentions it. UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record Random House, covers it. Those took all of two seconds to find. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you kindly provide links to all of the relevant texts of the above so that we can determine if they are sufficiently reliable sources? The text of "Global Aerospace Monitoring and Disaster Management" does not seem to be online and no reliable source connects it with this UFO flap. The other book you mention seems to be a UFO conspiracy book, the kind of which are rarely considered to be reliable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I read it on GBooks, and Springer are most certainly RS. Random House are a well established publisher, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record is written by Leslie Kean, an investigative journalist and co-founder of the Coalition for Freedom of Information and the book was in the NYT best seller list. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Basically, we have an article that claims that UFOs attacked and harmed Brazilian civilians, that a national military force intervened, and that great significance is attached to the suicide of a military officer. You can understand that WP:REDFLAG requires us to find multiple, objective sources for such extraordinary and sensational claims. The fact that all the sources (except for blog entries by UFO conspiracy believer Leslie Kean in the Huff Post alleging that alien spacecraft actually landed in Brazil, which aren't considered factual or notable) are in Portuguese makes it difficult to verify their objectivity and if they are being accurately used in the article. For example, the EFE source says Operation Prato existed but extraordinary claims made regarding it haven't been proven. The Grupo Folha source goes a bit further and says the military was skeptical of the UFO reports and nothing came of the "Operation" except UFOlogists later claiming a conspiracy/coverup. The sensational tabloid story in Rede Globo and the paranoid claims at "Ufo.com" are not objective at all, and must be disregarded. So the question brought up by this AfD remains: Is the "Operation" a notable event of historical significance? Have high quality sources given this event in depth attention? Are there adequate objective and independent sources with which to write an encyclopedic article? So far, I don't think so. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All three questions have been answered already. However, you and Salimfadhley just label all sources we provide as unreliable, non-objective, sensational or whatever, so I'll just wait for an administrator to close this discussion as "no consensus". The sources are there, if you deliberately choose not to accept them, there's nothing I can do. By the way, I would be very happy if anyone could show me the exact guideline, rule or discussion that determined that any UFO-related source is most certain to be unreliable. Victão Lopes  Fala! 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Terra, Globo and Folha de S.Paulo are reliable mainstream sources in Brazil. --Carioca (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The standard which applies to sources about extraordinary or fringe claims is Fringe theories. Furthermore, I think you might be confusing the word "Source" with "Publisher". Globo, Terra etc may be somewhat reputable publishers but not everything they publish can be considered a historically reliable source. I'd be happy to explain more if you require clarification. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the fringe theory guideline. But this operation is not a fringe theory, it did exist, only the presence of UFOs is questionable, though the released official documents suggest strange phenomena in the skies. Now, who's going to judge whether a certain source by a fine publisher is reliable? And on what basis would it be determined? Never heard of this possibility, and never had problems here when citing sources by well-established publishers. By the way, just added even more sources, and removed/corrected a few of the UFO.com.br ones that were linking to unrelated pages. Victão Lopes  Fala! 04:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Would like to just bring this to the discussion: http://www.mufon.com/bob_pratt/oprato.html. MUFON hosted website of Operation Prato. In my mind its reliable in that its actually showing testimony from the towns people and sketches of "ufos" from the military personnel of the operation. It at lease show substance/evidence of the events occurrence and importance, aliens or not. I'd add it to the list but im god awful at editing wiki articles. Its hosted by MUFON, which I would say is a good thing. It does have a crummy layout but I want to say its pretty old, posted at lease by 2005, earliest 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezoncrack (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)  — Cheezoncrack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete: per Jeffrd10. Newsjunky12 (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) - Association of Deletionist Wikipedians
 * Comment: Just endorsing someone else's comment is not a valid argument, see WP:PERNOM. Also, you've added "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians" to your own signature, are you commenting based only on your personal Wikipedia philosophies? Victão Lopes  Fala! 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. For the moment I would say keep this article as the subject relates to an actual historical set of events (whatever anyone's interpretation of them may be) that is of interest sociologically as well as possibly in other ways. The article does however need re-developing. Perhaps most notably the link to the project's documentation needs to be either repaired or the documents summarized, with references, in the text. That would solve the problem of credible sources. Agree that the officers death is not immediately relevant to the topic - or not evidence is presented to that effect anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Mugan (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 January 2014 (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.