Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flying Saucers Are Real


 * 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. The keep !voters appear to have established that sufficient reliable sources exist to satisfy WP:NBOOK. Anarchangel's suggestion that the relevant section of Donald Keyhoe be reduced to a summary, with some of the material merged to this article, seems worthy of editorial attention. Deor (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Flying Saucers Are Real

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not finding any usable references for this book. There's some ancillary coverage that mentions the book or interviews the author, and one such article says the book is a "best-seller" but isn't a definitive source for that claim. I think we need to clearly meet WP:NBOOK, and I don't think this book does. Mikeblas (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although possibly notable there are so sources to establish this in the article &there is nothing I can find online in reliable sources, altho there may well be print sources from the time of publication. However the subject is in fact rather better covered in the biography of Donald Keyhoe, so am not suggesting a merge. The only regeret is that the rather charming cover illustration is on a fair use license, which I assume would not apply to its use in the biog.TheLongTone (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep At least six available references, including Carl Gustav Jung. The argument that the author's article has more material is easily countered: I assert that the author's article has too much material, some of which needs to moved to the book article.
 * Crows, Pete Rose, UFOs: And Other Pretty Pieces, Marvin E Mengeling
 * The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects: The Original 1956 Edition, Edward J. Ruppelt.
 * Hostile Aliens, Hollywood and Today's News: 1950s Science Fiction Films and 9/11, Melvin E. Matthews
 * UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973, Richard M. Dolan
 * "Recommended Reading," F&SF, Fall 1950, p.83
 * C.G. Jung (1958). "Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies". p. xiii
 * Anarchangel (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep it was a ground-breaking book that significantly contributed to Air Force openness with regard to UFOs, and it was the inspiration for the 1956 film Earth vs. the Flying Saucers. Besides it meets WP:GNG easily. Of course UFO-ology is fringe, the issue here is not the validity of Keyhoe's presentation, but whether that presentation was notable. --Bejnar (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny: the article makes none of the claims for the book that you make here. Is that because your assertions here don't need references, while the article does? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I added sources and text before making my comment, I am surprised that you missed "groundbreaking" in the lead as supported by the source that follows it. Do take a look at the sources. --Bejnar (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Assertions not only do not require references, they would not be assertions if there were references. People make assertions here all the time. I have never asked anyone to WP:AGF before, but I do now. Anarchangel (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This book was a very big deal when it appeared in 1950. The book (and the magazine article it was based on) were widely covered and kept the author in the public eye for more than a decade (eg ). Simplistic internet searches are pretty useless in assessing most of the popular culture of the 1950s, but it's rather difficult to understand why the nomination rejects commentary by Jung (!) as a sign of notability or why the many results a Google Scholar search turns up (often despite paywalls) are to be ignored (for example, one article in the Journal of American Folklore characterizes the book as influential ("With the publication of Donald E. Keyhoe's book The Flying Saucers Are Real (1950), many people believed in the conspiracy theory, charging that the Air Force consciously withheld UFO information from the general public"; another piece in the Journal of Transatlantic Studies declares the book "garner[ed] a good deal of international attention" and "made headlines"; while a more recent piece in English Today calls the book "The first reputable ufological text." This ought to be a slam-dunk keep decision. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:24, 20 July 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.