Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFOs and the Bible


 * 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. I think it can safely be said that the topic as such is probably notable but the content needs work to comply with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  Sandstein  07:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

UFOs and the Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original research. The author is using Wikipedia to expand on his views presented at his own website. The use of many references should detract from the fact that the author is drawing his own conclusions. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC) The author is also not computer savvy and open to any suggestions on cleanup, organization, or other suggestions to better neutrality. The author is currently trying to update the page to many references to these books. Each number in the work corresponds to a reference which has not yet been entered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.44.50 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. An unwarranted promotion of fringe theories that doesn't represent all significant views fairly and without bias. — Rankiri (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * KeepI can tell you that the author does not have a website. I am not the author. The author is compiling a large amount of information of published material on a general topic. The author includes his own theory but also supports theories that are not his own to try to attain neutrality. The author does not link to or in any way monetarily benefit from the work he has done.
 * Perhaps an 'is' should be inserted in front of 'open'? As it stands, 'open' is negated by the 'not' preceding 'computer savy' (should be 'savvy'). Peridon (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The idea is a load of cobblers - but there is a hell of a lot in print about it. People like von Daniken are not so much discredited by the scientific establishment as never having been credited in the first place - but they and their theories are notable (unfortunately...). Apart from that external link (which I regard as spam), the article looks well researched and documented. I can't see much that violates WP:NPOV. The whole concept is 'fringe' WP:FRINGE, but it's much-publicised fringe - unlike some of the snake-oil peddlers and self-improvenent jockeys we get trying to push their own particular brands. To me, this attempts to cover the lot of this particular bee in the bonnet. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:FRINGE: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Most of the article is direct WP:OR analysis of minority views, not supported by any independent major publications or notable scientific groups.
 * From WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Again, the article's views are extremely one-sided. From the very start, it threats fringe science as if it were mainstream and doesn't offer any objective commentary from reliable scientific sources. — Rankiri (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the title was UFOs and the Bible? Since when has the Bible been mainstream science? Or science of any sort even... I couldn't say how many believers there are in these varying views - I do know the books sold very well. Please note - I do not subscribe to any of these views - and nor do I subscribe to the Bible being anything more than a book of myth, legend, legal codes, history, letters (and erotic poetry). Peridon (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, when I mentioned mainstream science, I wasn't talking about the Bible at all. The phenomenon of UFOs has been a subject of scientific inquiry for decades and I don't believe that the general empirical consensus is in any way supportive of the article's views. The article also contains a number of consensus-dodging claims and theories that would never be allowed to stay on such more carefully patrolled articles as UFO and Bible. Its language also gives such minority views as the "government cover-up" theory an inappropriate amount of undue weight. The whole "the governments of the world deny that we are being visited by an extraterrestrial reality, while UFO researchers claim that the evidence of a cover-up is overwhelming" bit is not exactly a neutrally-worded representation of all significant viewpoints, don't you agree? — Rankiri (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I note that citing oneself is allowed but I think the article gives undue weight to Downing's views. StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with severe cleanup. This is a notable (if fringy) topic. The tone of the article doesn't seem very wikipedialike, however. I suggest mass cleanup, but the topic isn't worth trashing. Articles are deleted for inappropriate/non-notable topics. This doesn't fall into that category. (update) This really needs TONS of cleanup. If it cannot be written to WP standards, then delete. Timneu22 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but Edit The subject may be a fringe to many people, but the article does not represent WP:OR at all. However, it is nearly unreadable and needs to be heavily edited. Warrah (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Concerning "fringe," the topic is fringe if we mean that the topic will not be discussed in church, synagogue, mosque, or temple at most religious services.
 * But students will watch the History Channel program, "UFOs in the Bible," and then go to Wikipedia, and type in "UFOs and the Bible," as I did, and find an invitation to write an article.
 * I wrote the article with students in mind; I could have left out the section on "UFOs and Religious Imagination," but I thought students need to see the wider perspective, including the mythological, psychological and cult dimension of the subject.
 * In regard to the "Angelic theory" (Downing) being too strong, I assume the proper response is to strengthen the other three positions: Ancient Astronaut (von Daniken) Demonic (Bates), and Fallen Angel (Missler and Eastman).  Please offer suggestions on how this strengthening could be achieved.
 * Concerning the fact that UFOs are not mainstream science, notice that Psychologists like C.G. Jung can discuss religion and Flying Saucers, and likewise Lutheran theologian Ted Peters, without taking a position concerning the scientific reality of UFOs. At the very least, "UFOs and the Bible" is a subject for cultural anthropology.  19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrydowning (talk • contribs)
 * Barry, you wrote the article in a style like an essay. It needs to be written to the standards of wikipedia. This is my only complaint about the article; it just isn't written like other articles. Clean it up, and it is definitely a subject worth keeping! Timneu22 (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:FRINGE, WP:OR (the article is based largely on the editor's own work, which is published in books, but not ones that can be classed as reliable sources), and serious conflict of interest. Even if these didn't apply, I don't think the article can be cleaned up to Wikipedia standards: I note that the nominator made an attempt to do so before nominating it for deletion. At best I can see benefit in a short paragraph or two in Unidentified flying object. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bible itself is crap, so what is the problem to equate crap UFO theories to Bible? I smell a pro-Biblical POV is the motivation behind this nom and other delete votes masquerading as OR. If the article has COI problem, then edit it, do not delete it. Defender of torch (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you still perceive any foul odors, a nice cold shower may do you some good. — Rankiri (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a summary of mostly well-known theories, nonsensical though they are.  It is perfectly understandable that people in the Judeo-Christian culture area would use Biblical imagery for what they dream or imagine. it's not sourced in detail, but it could be. It's not promoting fringe, it's talking about it. The need to rewrite an article for style is not a reason to delete it.    DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me it's a very POV discussion, mostly pushing the personal view of the editor (Downing) that "UFO beings are not here on earth only as observers, but rather that they are directing and controlling human destiny... they are a divine, or angelic power, guiding the development of life on earth." His description of his personal debate with Bates is also very POV, with a rather extreme COI. Not to mention that the whole article assumes a certain POV on what UFOs are.  I'm sure an objective sociological discussion of religious views on UFOs might be useful to Wikipedia, but this article is hardly that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is not WP:OR, but based on a lot of published work. My personal belief is that the whole business a a load of cobblers, but that is my opinion.  A lot of published sources are cited, and editor's views of them are their WP:POV.  I am certainly not an expert of the subject, but it is a view that people hold, and they are entitled to seek to put forward that view.  There is a significant difference between an article about a view, and a POV article.  If the article is expressing only the POV of its believers, the appropriate course is for some one to add a section setting out the arguments of those debunking the theory, so that the reader is offered both opposing POVs, and can make his own choice.  However, that implies improving the article, not deleting it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comments: An editor has deleted the section "Angelic theory" on the basis that this theory seems to be solely the product of Downing's making, and as the author of this article, that editor felt there was a conflict of interest. Looking at the references, the article appears to be a coatrack on which to hang this self-developed angelic theory.  Without that section, the whole premise of the article (that UFOs are specifically related to the Bible) seems to fall apart.  The "ancient astronaut" theory (which already has its own article) is not specific to the Bible, but addresses ancient imagery from cultures around the world.  The "demonic theory" and the "fallen angel" theory appear to be synthesis on the part of the author to relate the UFO phenomenon to issues addressed in the Bible.  No references are given to indicate that any other author shares this view.  Finally, the last section ("UFOs and religious imagination") is not related to the Bible at all, but rather to newer spiritualities that are unrelated to the Bible.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. If you take a look on UFO, Ancient astronauts and other relevant pages, you'll see a number of sobering disclaimers like these:
 * Such theories have not received support within the scientific community, and have received little or no attention in peer-reviewed studies from scientific journals.


 * In his 1979 book Broca's Brain, Sagan suggested that he and Shklovski might have inspired the wave of '70s ancient astronaut books, expressing disapproval of "von Daniken and other uncritical writers" who seemingly built on these ideas not as guarded speculations but as "valid evidence of extraterrestrial contact." 


 * Some scientists have argued that all UFO sightings are misidentifications of natural phenomena and historically, there was debate among some scientists about whether scientific investigation was warranted given available empirical data. Very little peer-reviewed literature has been published in which scientists have proposed, studied or supported non-prosaic explanations for UFOs.
 * This article, however, takes these fringe theories and treats them as if they were almost universally accepted facts. Those who suggested to keep because you felt that the article's views were confirmed by the sources, please note that WP:OR is not the main issue here. WP:UNDUE, WP:POVFORK and WP:FRINGE are. — Rankiri (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree, but I think the topic is fine but the content needs to be rewritten. Timneu22 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (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.