Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shag Harbour UFO 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Shag Harbour UFO incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the article has no citations. In the few sections that do, it relies on a single book that isn't a WP:RS, published by what appears to be a pulp publisher. One of the book's authors claims to be a witness to the event. Other sources link to a blog that contain a single news article (and denials anything occurred). Even if valid, WP:NOTNEWS would apply. mikeman67 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article's sourcing may need a little work in it's current state, more sources can be found. The article has been covered in The Chronicle Herald in 1967 and more recently in 2013 A quick google search comes up with other sources: 1, 2 3. The Canadian government/millitary has some reports available in their archives, there is an annual festival celebrating the incident and it has been the subject of a documentary and multiple books. Admittedly, all together it isn't that much, but considering it happened in 1967 I feel it's enough coverage to make it pass WP:NOTNEWS.  Erebus Morgaine  (Talk) 16:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can you cite some of those books and the documentary? The book referred to right now doesn't appear to be very reliable. Obviously the Herald's stuff is reliable, but that on its own wouldn't establish it as anything more than WP:NOTNEWS, I would think. mikeman67 (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It's notable even if the article is a shambles. I'll put some time into improving it this weekend. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The Shag Harbor incident is one of the best-known and most famous UFO cases in Canadian history, so it should probably be kept because of that. Having said that, the article is a disorganized mess and needs some serious editing, imo. 2602:304:691E:5A29:4914:CD8F:9311:890A (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Suitable RS have been identified. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:33, 9 March 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.