Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Khoury Incident


 * 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. Kudos to User:Location for knowing the relevant notability guideline. This close is without prejudice to the creation of a redirect to articles where this incident is mentioned, if there is a consensus at that article that such a mention is appropriate. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Khoury Incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With scant coverage in independent sources, it's impossible for us to sustain a neutral article on a WP:FRINGE topic. bobrayner (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -Fim atic   (talk &#124; contribs) 02:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a microstub that tells our readers almost nothing. One source is a passing mention. The other is a book which purports to "explore the convictions held by many in the modern day world that extraterrestrials, angels, fairy-folk, and other-dimensional intelligences regularly interact with human beings." This is clearly a fringe, unreliable source which can't be used to establish notability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:EVENT, the relevant guideline. - Location (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems notable but not encyclopedic; could have been covered in "List of Alien abduction claimants", had such an article existed. Logos (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very WP:Fringey. Not seeing much real coverage. NickCT (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Someone has added some ufo web pages and a blog as additional citations, however these aren't reliable independent sources that would indicate notability outside of the fringe ufo enthusiast bubble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable.Nickm57 (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I really want to keep this because it is so funny. Rare "Chinese type" DNA! Not just aliens, but Oriental aliens. There appear to be many newspaper references to an Australian "Peter Khoury", who is referred to as "an academic and playwright in Sydney" in one article written by him (about a musical). A man of the same name is described as an "NRMA spokesperson" several other articles about roads in Australia (the naming of a new road, The Northern Star, Lismore, Australia; The Queensland Times (Ipswich, Australia). Still, this is way too little to make him notable, even if he is the same Peter Khoury. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I suppose I don't have much of a chance. I believe that people's view of the Jerome Clark encyclopedia is off base; Andy Smith of Middle Tennessee State University, writing in the Penn State University Press journal Utopian Studies (article, through JSTOR), views it as a significant and reliable source in the study of the paranormal.  Smith seems to think that Clark's reliable because he documents the paranormal as a sociological and folkloristic phenomenon, saying basically that he is chronicling people's claims, rather than believing their stories.  All this is to say that Clark looks like a reliable professional encyclopedia, and because of that, we ought not delete it: if a professional encyclopedia finds the topic encyclopedic, why should we disagree?  Trim the junk details, for sure (we'll just have a stub remaining), but someone with access to Clark's book would be able to use his sources.  Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this particular book, but I think some people consider Clark a reliable source simply because he includes both credulous and skeptical views in his books, although, like most bestselling UFO authors, his work leans toward emphasizing the credulous and sensational. He's also well known for taking a position against scientific skepticism . - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just going with the academic who trusts him. I ran a complete JSTOR search for <"extraordinary encounters" and clark>, although I didn't check any other academic databases or aggregators, but I did do the same search at Google; all of these returned no scholarly results discussing the encyclopedia, except for Smith.  In the absence of any other academic opinions, I see no reason to distrust Smith or to assume that we know better than he does, although of course I'm willing to change my opinion if presented with an academic source that I failed to find earlier.  Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if Clark is reliable, I don't see how a mention across pages 17-18 in one book makes a person notable enough for a stand-alone article. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Paul B, when we delete an article (about any subject) on notability grounds, it means that we believe that a proper encyclopedia article cannot be written on the topic, since there's not enough sourcing. In this case, an encyclopedia article has been written on her and included in a professional encyclopedia: what business do we have telling the professional encyclopedia that they're wrong, that they shouldn't have included her?  We absolutely must defer to professional judgement.  This assumes that we should rely on Clark as a reliable scholarly professional; again, I think this, but I'm not unconvinceable otherwise.  If we don't count him as a reliable scholarly professional, my argument is moot.  Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite your "explanation" of what "we" do when we decide to delete an article, it seems to have very ittle relation to what is written in WP:NOTE. I reaslise you belive tyou have some sort of divime right to interpret guidelines and policy, but you don't. The guideline sats "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." A page in a dodgy 'encyclopedia' of woo is not significance coverage in reliable sources. You are on your own on this one. Completely. And Clark can barely be describerd as an encylopedia, let alone a "professional" one, whetever you think that means. Paul B (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I did not vote keep. Krishnachattan helpfully changed my vote for me in this edit . Paul B (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Paul B, kindly read WP:NPA and respond accordingly; I cannot imagine why you have attacked me in this way. It would be appreciated if you began addressing the issue at hand (bringing sources to address Clark's reliability or non-reliability) instead of name-calling and presuming that you know better than the scholar whom I cited.  Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has encyclopedic content. it is one of break through in paranormal history it has biological evidence too[one might think to search about alien DNA and these article is perfect one for him ] it is reliable article the sources are even from books .this article may find stupid for ordinary people but for ufo researchers it is good article .i stand up to prevent deletion of this article. — Preceding Krishnachaitan comment added by Krishnachaitan (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources are insufficient to justify an article however I would not object to this being mentioned in an appropriate list article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and semi-protect if you are concerned about neutrality then we can protect it immediately. The nominator's argument looks like WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The notion that we would consider the works of Jerome Clark to be a reliable source for any contentious claim whatsover strikes me as bizarre and appalling. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:37, 16 December 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.