Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO Phil (3rd 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 delete. No prejudice to redirecting to Coast to Coast AM with a merge of appropriate size. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

UFO Phil
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Overly promotional pseudo-biography of a fictional character whose gimmick is apparently making people think he's a real person. As it is, the article is slanted toward the latter. Many sources are simply documenting appearances on Coast to Coast AM, with most all of them restricted to WP:SENSATIONALized, tabloid-ish, or "news of the weird" departments that play at being "in on the joke" rather than covering the subject in a serious or objective manner.
 * Overly promotional pseudo-biography of a fictional character whose gimmick is apparently making people think he's a real person. As it is, the article is slanted toward the latter. Many sources are simply documenting appearances on Coast to Coast AM, with most all of them restricted to WP:SENSATIONALized, tabloid-ish, or "news of the weird" departments that play at being "in on the joke" rather than covering the subject in a serious or objective manner.

For example there is no actual background info available on the subject, e.g. education, early career, etc. from which to construct an objective biography of a person. It's as if the person didn't exist before their first publicity in 2010. Neither is there any critique of the subject's outlandish fringe claims available from any source.

If UFO Phil were a real person, we'd have to treat the article as a WP:FRINGEBLP, which advises that "Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner". If UFO Phil is a character being portrayed by an actor or performance artist, we'd want WP:RS verifying that fact, and we'd want to structure the article according to MOS:FICT, which specifies that "Characters should not be presented as if they are real persons".

Wikipedia shouldn't be inadvertently complicit in perpetuating Kayfabe around a subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that the 1srt AfD closed in 2008 as "delete" the 2nd in 2009 as "keep."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Individual is clearly using Wikipedia as a promotional platform, and no appropriate reliable sources on this topic appear to be available. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article currently looks extremely promotional and unclear and may qualify for WP:TNT, but notability seems to be available, and better then the previous nomination which ended in keep. I am not entirely convinced either way, but keeping in mind WP:Deletion is not cleanup and the recommendations in WP:TNT, it may be better to to rv to a old revision without the promotional content and start again from there.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave WP:TNT consideration before filing this AfD. Even if we were to rv to an older version such as this one, we still have no reliable source that takes the subject seriously enough to verify details of UFO Phil as an actual person (or a vice versa, as a comedic character portrayed by an actor). A better solution would be delete and redirect to Coast to Coast AM where a small para on the individual would be appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In that case I agree. I've not been able to find any WP:RS to confirm either way. A redirect with curated merge is likely the best option.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The previous nomination ended up in a keep at a time when Wikipedia was working out some issues with regards to biographies that it has largely resolved in favor of erring on the side of caution rather than radical inclusion. To that end, I would argue that this is a biography rather than a character (though I acknowledge that the line is fine here), but there is clearly no room for an article about the actor playing this character. Moreover, the "character" fails our inclusion criteria as well. I want it to be clear that although sources can be found which mention this person/character, there are no in-depth biographical or analytical sources which have noticed him or his schtick. If he becomes famous enough to be noticed by mainstream media or commented upon by independent sources, then we can think about re-creation. jps (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I am seeing a lot of local news coverage, enough to just pass.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow - interesting character and interesting discussion about AfD. I think there is plenty about this character, but nothing about the person. If this is a comedian who has played many characters or at least has some kind of "poe like" bigger agenda I would like to read that bio. In the meantime this is just a promotional article about a non-notable (but colorful and amusing) character. I'm not seeing how this could be reverted back to a time when there was no promotional content, as it is all promotion. I would add that if much more is written about the real person, his motivation and goals, possibly about what he learned about society and the public's ability to believe without direct evidence, THAT might be really interesting, a look into human behavior. And if so then I think we might revisit this page, but not for UFO Phil, but for Phil Hill (if that is his real name). And the UFO Phil would be one part of that story. For now, this page is only promotion and should not exist, except maybe as a mention on other pages such as Coast to Coast as suggested.Sgerbic (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the page as it exists right now is being used solely for promotion. Also, it does not appear that many non-promotional reliable sources exist. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO. Most of the hits that come up when I run news searches on "UFO Phil" are articles about a singer with the band "UFO, Phil," Mogg.  Beyond that, the best I can find is this echo in a regional daily of a brief article from a local paper Cyber star “UFO Phil” moves to Colorado Springs.  It's not much, but there doesn't seem to be much WP:SIGCOV on this guy. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note Please be aware that canvassing on Twitter (archived tweet) and socking has commenced. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing really pisses me off. Sgerbic (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Article needs cleanup and removal of anything appearing to be strictly promotional. However, subject is notable due to multiple national television and radio appearances as well as reliable press coverage. Subject matter may be silly but Wiki afd guidelines has this to say: "What is deletion not for? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing. Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." My vote is for cleanup of this article and removal of any claims not properly sourced. But, article should be kept per Wikipedia guidelines for notability.Predatordrone610 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC) — Predatordrone610 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you sure that there would be anything left? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I recommend taking a look at this user's edit history: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Predatordrone610) &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OMG Seriously? Do these people even know how transparent Wikipedia is. Sgerbic (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even if the subject is notable, and I'm not convinced, this would be a TNT job. As for this being a fictional character played by a performer who stays in character, the example of this sort of thing that springs to my mind is that of Keith Lemon. Notice how Lemon's article makes it completely clear that this is a character and who the performer is. There is even a separate article for the performer as they are famous for other things too. Tony Clifton (mentioned in the article) seems to fall into the same mould as Lemon. If UFO Phil falls onto this category too then this article is no good at all as it says nothing about who is behind the character. OTOH, he might be a bit more like Vermin Supreme, who is a real person who has adopted an unusual identity as their real self. If so, this article is no good as it lacks biographical details. Either way, there is very little here that is soberly informative. The fact that a reader could read the whole article and still have no idea what the subject actually is, is a sure sign that the article is no damn good. It is clear that this article is here to promote the guy/character/performance, not to serve our readers with encyclopaedic information. Let's get rid of it. If they really do make a big Hollywood biopic (yeah, right) then it can be recreated then. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge  to Coast to Coast AM with a trimmed bio. This is a fictional character, like Morgus (also a guest).-- Auric   talk  21:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would be much of a merge, as each person only gets a sentence or two, but I'd have no objection to this outcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: While there are some reliable sources, a lot of that appears to be purely the result of self-promotion. Take a 14 January 2011 article from The Gazette : "During his stop on a round of local media interviews to drum up interest in his pyramid, he insisted his visit was no a publicity stunt, despite his cameraman's presence." Also, "Hill - if that is his real name - is the sort of pseudo-celebrity that is the product of the internet age. He doesn't have a television show or film career, but 421,0000 people have watched his low budget movie, "UFO Phil: The Movie," on YouTube. He doesn't have a major-label contract, but his songs about aliens have been played on national radio." --tronvillain (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also the "UFO Phil sighting at Magic Lantern", which says: Just who is this Phil? Well, he claims to be Phil Hill, a guy “in my late 30s” who was born and raised on a ranch near Roswell, N.M. – home of the infamous UFO incident of July 7, 1947. Of course, he could be “Les Michaels,” the Portland filmmaker who contacted me by e-mail about the screenings of “UFO Phil: The Movie,” which he described as “a low-budget comedic mockumentary filmed guerilla-style on the streets of Spokane and in the woods around Mount Spokane.” Or he could be Rick Still, credited in the film as one of three cinematographers, the project’s executive producer – and as the person who plays, uh, “Les Michaels.” Seems relatively clear that UFO Phil is Rick Still, as should also be obvious to anyone looking at their photos. --tronvillain (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, it's pretty obvious. But no reliable source bothers to explicitly identify the actor portraying UFO Phil, preferring instead to play along and keep it mysterious. I think the point is, we have no serious reliable sources to cite regarding background and biographical details of this individual, because there's no actual journalism (research, fact checking, editorial process, etc.) available to base a Wikipedia article on — just promotional activity that's been regurgitated in various outlets. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Much as I dislike otherstiffexisats I would point out it is not unusual for us to have pages on a character.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True. But it is also true that we routinely delete or redirect such pages to the film or book, and only keep them when they is a large amount of WP:SIGCOV of the character.  I am just not seeing that here, the two local newspapers cited by LuckyLouie notwithstanding.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * KeepThis discussion thus far has attempted to downplay the subject's notoriety by presenting only local news sources. Let's take a look at the national news coverage over the years. For example, this HuffPost article which clearly identifies UFO Phil as having the real name Phil Hill There are a multitude of other national news articles and interviews which are all soured within the article. How about this national news article by Lee Speigel? Not to mention the CBS News interview with Phil Hill, multiple HuffPost articles, the article on Coast to Coast AM's website, and the ABC Television website which shows his national TV appearance on August 2, 2018. It's clear that the person nominating this article for deletion has an ax to grind as this is the third time he's nominated the same article (his last attempt failed due to the subject having clear and demonstrable notoriety). If you choose to follow the rules of Wikipedia, the article should be kept. If you choose to disregard the principles of Wikipedia and instead erase those subjects which you personally have a distaste for, then clearly this article is headed for the deletion bin against all good judgement. Now the person who nominated the article is going to point out that this is my first ever Wiki edit. True. However, what I have written here makes sense and if you are a true proponent of Wikipedia's principles, you will agree with me regardless of my edit history. Thanks for your time. Blueblueseashore (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC) — Blueblueseashore (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete for several reasons including that this article was deleted once before and since then, he hasn't gained any notability so he would fail WP:N and all other notability guidelines for a fictional character. Nomination holds good points, as do most comments supporting delete. No reason not to, though the article does get a steady 15-25 views per day. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) <sup style="color:3300FF">(edits)   06:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.