Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Good (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Opinions are roughly equally divided. While I think the "delete" side have done a better job of analyzing the sources, reasonable people can disagree about how much weight to give the - by some accounts quite substantial, by other accounts not very serious - coverage of this man.  Sandstein  18:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Timothy Good
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page is just a bibliography of the subject Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 01:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 01:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 01:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 01:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 01:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Autobiographies is not necessarily a reason for deletion. If the subject both fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, it may be deleted.-- 94rain  Talk 01:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I wrote the article. I believe it satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BIO (in particular WP:BASIC but also if he is considered to be WP:ACADEMIC then the criteria I believe he satisfies there is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.") The article has multiple independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject, from Australian Broadcasting Corporation and a number from the BBC. The Irish Independent source says Good "is regarded as a world expert on alien phenomena." The BBC sources say "Timothy Good is considered one of the world's leading experts on the UFO phenomenon" / "Timothy Good is recognised as one of the world's leading authorities in the UFO phenomenon and has given lectures and interviews on television and radio all around the world" and "Timothy has written numerous best-selling books on UFOs and aliens ... and has acted as a consultant to several US Congress investigations into the phenomenon." -Lopifalko (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete A previously deleted article showed he wasn't notable as a violinist, and this bibliography does not demonstrate his notability as a writer. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 09:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep  Doing some research I see that the U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command considers him notabable enough to list on their official Unidentified Flying Objects Research Guide as a "Selected Published Source" for researchers, which is meaningful in my opinion. However, in six months if it is still a basic Stub class biography with no expanded sourced material to qualify as a Start class, then delete would be appropriate. Start class is "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete." 5Q5 (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also see my additional comment and update below. 5Q5 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing my input from Keep conditionally to a full Keep. When this article was nominated it contained just 109 words or so excluding references and was graded a Stub-class article on the talk page. It has since expanded (partly by me and mostly by the article's creator) to over four times that size and I now feel it qualifies with the inclusion of a mainstream media outlet (the BBC) calling him an international expert in his field and the article has at least has upgraded to a Start class. 5Q5 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FRINGEBLP applies here. At first glance, the sources seem reasonable. However, upon close examination they treat the subject with a WP:SENSATIONAL angle (Example: ). If reliable sources merely sensationalize and don't bother to critically examine and evaluate Good's fringe claims (aliens briefed George Washington, secret bases under the ocean, conspiracy by world governments, malevolent aliens vs good aliens, etc) then we have no serious source material from which to write an objective biography. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The claims in major media that he is a recognized expert on certain fringe topics would seem on its face to be enough for notability, but (per FRINGEBLP as cited above and per WP:NPOV) we also need sources that directly respond to his fringe views and provide a neutral mainstream view of them. Do such sources exist? They do not appear to be included in the article in its current state. Right now we only say that he is "a lecturer on the subject" but not what is positions are nor how mainstream they are, and I don't think that's an acceptable state to leave the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can try to add this, perhaps from reviews of his books. Also, there is a review on his web site from The Sunday Times that I could try to source, which says: "Overall Beyond Top Secret is a fascinating and well-documented book that makes a convincing case. The evidence that Good has amassed is too overwhelming to ignore and it is clear that a more open debate is long overdue." I can also remove the unsatisfactorily sourced "lecturer". -Lopifalko (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In the week since you posted that, you have not added them. The article is still lacking sufficient reliable secondary sources to change my vote to delete. You should have used these sources in drafting the original article. If they were adequate, it would have saved a lot of other editors' time. If you couldn't find enough, it would have saved your time. TFD (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did remove that he was a lecturer. I may not have had an opportunity to learn how to find the paywalled / offline sources (The Sunday Times) but I have been following this discussion and added plenty more of the sources that have come up. At the time this article was nominated for deletion it had 4 sources from the BBC, 2 from HuffPost, and 1 apiece from the Irish Independent, ABC, The New York Times, the CIA and New Scientist. 11 in total. I do not think that I am to blame for not adequately sourcing this article and wasting peoples' time. Now it has 28 sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still don't see anything about what his contributions to ufology are. I created an article about Kenneth Goff, who coincidentally was also a leading ufologist, although I didn't mention it in his article. (I'll have to do that.) While I had come across his name as a leading figure in anti-Communism and the far right, I made sure I had sufficient sources to explain his views, influence and credibility to create an article. TFD (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously it is ideal to, but if I absolutely must go as far as to describe a person's "views, influence and credibility" in order to create a biographical article then I have learned something. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete While there are sources that he is a world expert on ufology, there is very little other information about him in reliable sources. WP:ACADEMIC does not apply because he is not an academic. While similar criteria could apply to pseudo-scientists as well, the article would need to explain what that contribution was. For example Copernicus "formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe," Isaac Newton "laid the foundations of classical mechanics," Einstein "developed the theory of relativity." We don't just say they were really important scientists and leave it at that. TFD (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I can try to add what his contribution is, if I can source reviews of his books. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Does it add to his notability that Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender and Peter Hill-Norton have written forewords for some of his books? -Lopifalko (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment again from 5Q5 (Keep, above). I remember buying Good's first book when it came out, later donated it to a library, but am not familiar with the content of the subsequent ones. Based on their titles and subtitles, however, they seem less geared toward neutral examinations of alien visitation theory and more toward pronouncements of sensational claims as fact. Phil Klass mentioned him a few times that I could find in the Internet Archive: Skeptics UFO Newsletter, #75 Spring 2003 Klass: Britain's Timothy Good, who first made public the original MJ-12 documents in the belief they were authentic, has since changed his opinion. Also, he was one of the first to spot that some of Tim Cooper's 'new' MJ-12 documents were written on Cooper's own personal typewriter [SUN #60/Nov. 1999]. Unlike the late UFO book author-lecturer media personality Stanton Friedman, Timothy Good doesn't have an entry on IMDb and if ever mentioned or reviewed in Skeptical Inquirer or Skeptic magazines, those articles are currently not online. In my opinion, if an author doesn't have a large enough mainstream media profile (yet) to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, that is either the fault of the written works to be newsmaking enough or the author's lack of a public relations effort to get mainstream press coverage. Perhaps one day Mr. Good will achieve those goals and someone can retry with a more developed article. For now, I still say keep the stub article for awhile to see if anyone can dig up more balanced referenced material, then delete if none can be found. 5Q5 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to his entry on IMDb. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that. Update, I dug up some mainstream and skeptically sourced material (BBC, Klass, etc.) and added it to the article. It might even be considered a "developing, but incomplete" Start-class bio now instead of a basic Stub, in my opinion. 5Q5 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep being a stub is not a reason for deletion, his works have been reviewed in reliable sources such as The Times and he is an expert in his field according to reliable sources such as the BBC so he should be included. Obviously the UFO subject is controversial so neutral reliable sourcing is essential, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added an expanded list of "Film and TV documentary appearances" and removed "lecturer". -Lopifalko (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Atlantic306. Noted author and clearly worthy of having a Wikipedia article, regardless of what one thinks of his subject material. Jusdafax (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Both sides made some good points but Atlantic306 won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC) *Keep there are no actual UFOs. Howerer, there are reviews of his book, feature coverage, SIGCOV of him in articles about UFOS going back decades and best evaluated for notability in a news archive search. I may wish that Good's sort of martian-credulity didn't exist, but it does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC) rethinking.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It was well discussed. Barca (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is GNG and sources are sufficient.  Lubbad85   (☎) 23:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Other editors are being duped here. The reviews of his "work", such as they are, are of the WP:SENSATIONal variety and the problem is one of WP:FRIND where the only in-depth sources which discuss Good as a person are hopelessly conflicted. It is not possible to write a neutral and verifiably sourced article on this person because he is not notable enough a WP:FRINGEBLP. This also smacks a bit of WP:SOAP. Is the author of this article conflicted in some way? jps (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Conflicted" in what way jps? -Lopifalko (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dunno! I cannot understand your motivation for recreating a deleted article on an obscure UFOlogist. The fact that you claim he is a congressional consultant (which is a self-congratulatory claim that is verified by precisely no one) looks like you might be his publicist. jps (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * jps, I've written articles on 121 different people. 90 of those have been on photographers but 31 have been on totally random people. Why would I happen to be the publicist of this one in particular? I read Good's Beyond Top Secret many years ago. Recently I cleared out books and noticed this. I looked him up and was surprised there was no article on him, given how well renowned I remember him being all those years ago (amongst people, not necessarily amongst citable sources). He hardly seems "obscure", given his many books published by major publishers. I started the article from a nostalgic point of view and to see if one were possible; and continued it because it seemed he was provably notable. People write articles for all sorts of reasons that can never be guessed at, and why should we; to critique their motives when there are a plethora of independent reliable sources backing them up seems churlish. If the BBC and HuffPost talk about him having been "a consultant to several US Congressional investigations into UFOs" then why _not_ mention that in the article? -Lopifalko (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a history in WP:FRINGE articles at Wikipedia with WP:PROMOTION, so we have to be on the look-out. I appreciate your explanation and want to assure you that I am only questioning this out of an abundance of caution and wish more people were transparent as you are being. To be clear, Huffpost is notoriously credulous when it comes to pseudoscience and the BBC articles seem to me to be suffering from WP:SENSATIONalism (there is no attempt to actually investigate the subject dispassionately). UFOs are fringe topics liable to attract more scrutiny because of the problems we have with Wikipedia being used to promote nonsense. It seems like promotion of nonsense is exactly what is occurring here. jps (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying what's going on. Remarkably, I hadn't still hadn't genned up on WP:FRINGE, and was confused by the increased oversight for a straight forward article, but I get it now. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

These topics are tricky and have a long history here at Wikipedia. The problem is that a lot of the claims this person makes are incorrect, but they are so superficially incorrect that there are not sources commenting directly on his claims. This tends to raise red flags in terms of notability (and is, thus, my primary reason for !voting "delete"). This is typically the tactic Wikipedia has taken with respect to these subjects and why his biography was deleted in the past. An alternative technique might be to relax the original research rules and allow for critical analysis that is absent in the source material, but the problem with this is that we have no way to vet WP:EXPERTs at Wikipedia and so if you accept original research that is high-quality you would also end up accepting original research that is low-quality. Deletion is a way to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia while simultaneously also avoiding sticky discussions about what to do with demonstrably incorrect ideas. jps (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The aspersions being cast by editor jps are a patent violation of WP:NPA. Being personally called a “dupe” and seeing Lopifalko’s good faith being blatantly smeared is a matter of concern far beyond the Afd we were previously having a civil discussion about. I’d like a non-involved admin to review the comments editor jps has made here, which I believe to be actionable. Jusdafax (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with me personally, this is not the correct venue to discuss it. I suggest moving this to somewhere more appropriate. jps (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment (5Q5, keep). I dug up some more citable phrases establishing the subject's international notability, at least beginning in 1987: "Timothy Good, Britain's leading UFO researcher" The Observer, 1987, London, England, The Salina Journal, Salina, Kansas, 1987, The Pantagraph, Bloomington, Illinois, 1987. / "British journalist Good" Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1988. [End refs] These that I've just mentioned aren't sensational or fringe claims, just basic descriptions of a nonfiction book's author, which should be considered separate from any other content in the cited article that may otherwise include some sensational material (think articles about time travel, parallel universes, etc.}.
 * Other Wikipedia articles that already exist on Good:
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Good
 * https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Good
 * https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Good
 * https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8A%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%93%D1%83%D0%B4
 * https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Good
 * (Comment contd) As you know, there is a "better source needed" tag available if an editor is not happy. If Phil Klass wrote about him multiple times then surely there must be one or more back issues of The Skeptical Inquirer pre-Internet era where he gets discussed that could be added as balance in the future. I expect skeptics will look into that. For the record, I don't know Mr. Good directly or indirectly. Due to government and even United Nations interest in the topic of UFOs I don't think it's deserving of the label fringe as say the topics of fairies and bigfoot would be. There is a mainstream aspect to it definitely, in my opinion. 5Q5 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As an astronomer, I can tell you, 5Q5 that your opinion is based on ignorance and supposition rather than fact of what is visible in the sky. Also, our opinions do not matter on Wikipedia. The fact that you are WP:POVPUSHing this idea that UFOs are "mainstream" makes me question as to whether you should be editing in this area. See WP:CIR. jps (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Jps, per WP:TALK: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." I didn't write that UFOs are mainstream. I wrote that an aspect of the topic is. I also didn't equate the term UFOs with alien visitation. A UFO could be a meteor and often is. I don't have a CD or print back-issue collection of the Skeptical Inquirer to do an in-depth search for critical quotes about Good, but here (see badufos.blogspot.com/2014/02/) is a 2014 notability description with criticism by skeptic and CSI fellow Robert Sheaffer that you can add to the article in a Criticism section right now with my full encouragement: "well-known British UFOlogist Timothy Good, long known for promoting dubious claims..." 5Q5 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You aren't dealing with the substance of the criticism. When a skeptic scoffs at a pseudoscientist like Good with an off-handed comment, this is not something on which to build a WP:BLP. In-depth sources are important to establish notability. Right now, we have hack churnalism and sneering. I also note that you are the one trying to equate UFOlogy with time travel (which exists) and parallel universes (which are a serious topic of academic debate) as opposed to bigfoot and fairies. We absolutely should have an article on UFOs. We should not have an article on 3rd rate charlatans who sell stories to breathless journalists like Good whether they are believers in alien contact, monsters, or magic pixie dust. jps (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Final comment from 5Q5 (keep). Another British UFO book author Jenny Randles has a minor biographical article on Wikipedia with substantially less references. Her article survived a deletion nomination in 2008. I say publish Good's developing Start-class article and place the same header template that is on Randles'. Here are some more skeptical and mainstream source material for any interested editor to use to provide balance to Good's article: I don't see any point in commenting further. I don't intend to do any additional work on or to monitor Good's article. The editor who created it should have done more homework before uploading it. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Skeptic magazine UK (He gave a lecture they sponsored. Contains info from Good's publisher.)
 * Australian Skeptics (book review)
 * Australian Skeptics (book reviews)
 * Google search: site:thetimes.co.uk "Timothy Good" (At least one of Good's books was on The Times's UK bestseller list. The site has a paywall.)
 * Look, for us to write a biography, we need sources that attest to this person's biography. We need more than book reviews and blurbs about events from 15 years ago. WP:NAUTHOR does not seem to be met by your proposed list. jps (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, not exactly. With writers, artists and other WP:CREATIVE  types, if the work is notable, we can have a page - even if the author is anonymous.  Bio details not required.  Of course, Good is not exactly Elena Ferrante, more like Ibn Warraq, or Mark A. Gabriel, a pseudonym, for a writer whose work is considered FRINGE by some - although it's hard ot be as FRINGE as believing in UFOs.  the page on Gabriel has been taken to AfD and kept 3 separate times: Articles for deletion/Mark A. Gabriel (3rd nomination). We really don't need bio details.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if the work is notable, then it should be possible to find some sources about the person making the work (if not, we just write about the work). These reviews are not exactly screaming "notable creative-type" here. jps (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Houston, We have a problem. The problem is that the page is edited and maintained by editors intent on the anti-reality narrative the UFOs exist and that Good is a leading expert on the real and documented phenomenon of members strange alien species popping down to to earth for a visit in vehicles of extraterrestrial manufacture. With apologies for using a paywalled news search cf.:
 * Comment User:E.M.Gregory "The problem is that the page is edited and maintained by editors intent on the anti-reality narrative the UFOs exist and that Good is a leading expert..." — Not true and I take offence at the insinuation. In my case I wrote the article basically on the basis that an author existed and that a minimum of sustained coverage in 2 independent reliable sources existed. I have tried to keep it as objective as I could. Where people here have suggested the article take on another direction I have tried to incorporate that, see the "Criticism" section. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The page, as it now stands, largely the work of page creator Lopifalko, is a POV misrepresentation not only of reality, but of the sources he cites, with quotations from sources pulled out of context so that meaning is inverted or elided.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you give me an example of what you mean then I can address it. I feel you're assuming nefariousness intent where there is none. Please assume good faith. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * " The United States held a top-secret investigation into unidentified flying objects after World War II and found the bodies of four humanoids from a crashed flying saucer, according to Britain's leading UFO expert. The Observer newspaper yesterday quoted UFO researcher Timothy Good as saying that a U.S. government committee, code-named Majestic-12, examined and then covered up news of UFO crashes in the late 1940s.": (UFO Expert Says U.S. Found 4 Dead Humanoids. San Francisco Chronicle [San Francisco, Calif]01 June 1987: 3.
 * He is not infinitely credulous, " A CLAIM by an Oldbury stargazer that he had filmed a UFO has been shot to Earth by an expert who reckons the footage is the planet Venus. Roberto Pall...  maintained the object, which he first saw in May, was a UFO...  He filmed various encounters of what he was convinced was a spacecraft from another world. But best-selling author and UFO expert Timothy Good said after viewing the footage he was convinced it was actually Venus which does shine brightly in the night sky. He added: "To me most of the footage does indeed show Venus. The enlarging and shrinking of the object is due to the video camera being on auto-focus.": (Timothy Good is recognized as one of the world's leading authorities." UFO 'is just Venus' Birmingham Mail; Birmingham (UK) 26 July 2007: 20.)
 * But he is a believer, and a conspiracy theorist: " Timothy Good of Beckenham, an author of several novels on UFOs, said: "UFOs remain the most sensitive subject in British intelligence. It is wonderful that some of this information is now being made public even though I believe they are withholding even more. 'The sheer number of sightings over London and the fact that none has a rational explanation is both fascinating and exciting to me.'": (Great flying doughnuts! Secret UFO figures are revealed ; Close encounters: the Ministry of Defence still has no explanation for 34 UFO sightings above the capital since 2002. Widdup, Ellen. Evening Standard; London (UK) [London (UK)]14 Feb 2006: 3. ) E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI. Some, er, highlights of Good's beliefs:
 * The US has been in charge of worldwide alien contact since 1952.
 * President George Washington kept details of the aliens a secret.
 * President Eisenhower had meetings with the aliens during his administration.
 * The US 10th Fleet has had bases on the Moon and Mars for decades.
 * Good has had three personal contacts with aliens. Telepathically.
 * Astronaut Gordon Cooper has flown a recovered alien flying saucer.
 * Henry Kissinger was part of an inner circle working with the aliens since 1946.
 * NASA's real mission is to distract the public from the truth about aliens.
 * ...and that's just from one book. The titles of his books are literally conspiracy theories (e.g. Earth: An Alien Enterprise: The Shocking Truth Behind the Greatest Cover-Up in Human History), yet we have no RS calling him a conspiracy theorist. That alone should tell you that none of the cited sources takes Good seriously enough to give him anything but WP:SENSATIONAL coverage, and that's a shitty basis for an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and that's just from one book. The titles of his books are literally conspiracy theories (e.g. Earth: An Alien Enterprise: The Shocking Truth Behind the Greatest Cover-Up in Human History), yet we have no RS calling him a conspiracy theorist. That alone should tell you that none of the cited sources takes Good seriously enough to give him anything but WP:SENSATIONAL coverage, and that's a shitty basis for an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and that's just from one book. The titles of his books are literally conspiracy theories (e.g. Earth: An Alien Enterprise: The Shocking Truth Behind the Greatest Cover-Up in Human History), yet we have no RS calling him a conspiracy theorist. That alone should tell you that none of the cited sources takes Good seriously enough to give him anything but WP:SENSATIONAL coverage, and that's a shitty basis for an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable enough to meet WP:FRINGEBLP.  I NOTE  that although Good wrote many books, only the first (1987) book was widely reviewed, and those reviews were sensationalist, jocular or mocking in tone. That he was interviewed in the wake of the 1987 book, but after that interviews fall off steeply.  And that he advocated both the FRINGE theory that UFO's visit our planet regularly and the FRINGE conspiracy theory that the governments of the U.S. and U.K. have verification of these visits (dead bodies of aliens and similar,) that they conceal.  WP:FRINGEBLP is a higher standard than WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR, as it should be.  He does not pass it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Answering page creator User:Lopifalko's question here instead of above.  Lopifalko, what I meant by "POV misrepresentation" is, for example, the statement now on page that "Good has acted as a consultant to several US Congressional investigations into UFOs."   Published during his 5 seconds of press attention when the only one of his many books that got press attention came out, it is sourced to an unsigned article on Huff Post: "Eisenhower Met With ETs Says Ex-Government Consultant", which says nothing about a congressional investgation, and to BBC Birmingham, where a vague claim is made "has acted as a consultant to several US Congress investigations into the phenomenon."  But, have there actually been U.S. Congressional investigations into UFO?  I'm dubious. If there have been such investigations and Good participated in them you will be able to find and bring better documentation than this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. Likewise I am happy to remove anything else that is contentious. Personally I feel that "first western UFO researcher to be interviewed on Russian television after the collapse of the Soviet Union" is scraping the barrel, which another editor added. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am less troubled here by material that is "contentious" than I am by misrepresentation. For example, the page as you wrote it states: "According to the BBC, "Good is considered one of the world's leading experts on the UFO phenomenon", has "written numerous best-selling books" on the subject and was the first western UFO researcher to be interviewed on Russian television after the collapse of the Soviet Union."  But was this the BBC?  It  is posted on a BBC local Birmingham site in a section called "people", and we know that it is not reliable becasue it tells us that Good participated in multiple U. S. Congressional investigations of UFOs.  What it looks like is a press release.  the tipoff is the ending. "Timothy Good is next appearing in Birmingham in December 2009 to give a lecture for BUFOG - the Birmingham UFO Group. Visit: www.bufog.com for more information.  Tim's latest book 'Need to Know: UFOs, The Military, and Intelligence' published Sidgwick and Jackson is available now in all good bookstores."  this is a PR release by [].  "The Birmingham UFO Group."  E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, thanks, I hadn't read that far down. I have removed all the quotations cited to that. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I take it that you are satisfied with skeptoid.com as a WP:RS? If you want your assertion that the page is NPOV, you might want to take a closer look at the reliability of the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about skeptoid.com, someone else added that and also I have ignored it so far where it has been linked to in this discussion, with a plan to investigate another time. I will look at its use in the article later today. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the skeptoid.com source added by user 5Q5. I also removed "Robert Sheaffer has written that Good is "long known for promoting dubious claims" and source that I had added in good faith based on the info given by user 5Q5, in this deletion discussion above: "here (see badufos.blogspot.com/2014/02/) is a 2014 notability description with criticism by skeptic and CSI fellow Robert Sheaffer that you can add to the article in a Criticism section right now with my full encouragement". -Lopifalko (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Currently the only source in the article that is actually critical of Good's claims is a blog post on https://badufos.blogspot.com/. However, although it is by a recognized expert (Robert Sheaffer) it is a self-published source, and WP:BLPSPS forbids using such sources on biographies of living people. Without a reliably published source of this nature, we cannot have a properly neutral article about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * However, POV is not the only problem with this page. Per WP:BLPFRINGE there would need to be "reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner."E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see how this works now, that the sources humour him. I've started looking for sources that are critical of him but haven't found any yet. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked too, and several editors above note that they have also searched for a WP:RS vetting and factchecking Good's assertions about visitors from other worlds. None of us have found such a source - and I ran some powerful news and scholarly archive searches.  And, as you say, we do need such a source per WP:BLPFRINGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Would the critical analysis of Good and of his claims in Above Top Secret by Australian Skeptics in its The Skeptic magazine in 1987 and 1989 be suitable? Far, far above, 5Q5 said they weren't online but jps provided links. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete; it failed the first nomination, and there is only one reference dated 1987 for the leading UFO researcher in Britain; which indicates they probably have a new one every year, and probably isn't awarded by the Royal Society. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The article references are the best I could find.  He scrapes WP:NAUTHOR with his books being reviewed/cited by New Scientist, New York Times, BBC and Irish Independent (and others); and he is a major figure in his field.  The BBC have interviewed him, and said "Timothy Good is considered one of the world's leading experts on the UFO phenomenon".  He lacks the major interview in a Tier 1 RS that would give unambigious WP:SIGCOV, however, I do think he scrapes NAUTHOR, and a reader into UFOs would expect to find him in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, Tom DeLonge has had a May 2019 documentary aired on the $36m he has spent on UFO research (see Tom DeLonge), and he is citing Good as his inspiration; it is throwing a lot more citations on Good, including Newsweek, Fox News, and others. Again, adding to his notability in this field. Britishfinance (talk)
 * Note the BBC reference has been discussed here. It's not actually the BBC. It is written by a local UFO group and hosted on the BBC's Birmingham page. You can tell by the headline "Alien Bases Revealed!". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an interview by BBC Birmingham, which is still the BBC. As I said, he lacks a Tier 1 RS interview that would make him a solid Keep, but he is clearly identified by good RS as being a notable figure in this field per WP:NAUTHOR. Britishfinance (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed WikiData now so that his authority control data comes through. Britishfinance (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * His 1987 book Above Top Secret is actually cited by a paper that the CIA print in full on their website that supported the theme that the CIA covered up research into UFOs ; for a conspiracy theorist like Good, that is notability indeed. Britishfinance (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That was already linked to. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2019 (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.