Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trindade Island UFO hoax


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Trindade Island UFO hoax

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Three well-dodgy sources, really? Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Paranormal,  and Brazil.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete sourcing definately dodgy. -Roxy the dog 16:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete There are many sources describing this event/case/thing as either a hoax or A Real UFO, but none of them are outside the unreliable UFO bubble. It just doesn't seem to be notable, at least not anymore and not like, for example, this, so deletion is consistent with WP:N. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources in the article are either unreliable or primary, and I can't find anything better online. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The incident is interesting, but sadly, proper sourcing is not available. TH1980 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  MasterMatt12  💬 ● Contributions 01:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Does not appear to pas WP:GNG, coverage in very niche sources of dubious reliability - "credible UFO news and information", meh. I have serious doubts either of those sources meet WP:RS. If anyone disagrees, do let me know and we can discuss them at WP:RSN. That said, the incident, better searchable under the photographer name, is mentioned in some sources found in Google Scholar: . So there is a chance this could be rescued, if stuff could be verified with RS that meet WP:SIGCOV --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete unless of course RS are found that meet GNG. Doug Weller  talk 10:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I could not find any reliable sources that discuss this topic. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete due to unreliable sources that fail WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2023 (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.