Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voronezh UFO incident


 * 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. As always when there is disagreement as to whether an article meets the GNG, you have to remember that "reliable" and "substantial" are inherently subjective. Some have argued that this was covered in sober news outlets like the NYT and thus meets the GNG, others have suggested that while it did appear there, it was "filler" content and should not count. There is no clear consensus either way, and as it is a subjective question there is no alternative but a no consensus close. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Voronezh UFO incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The "incident" itself is an obvious hoax. There is no persistence of coverage of the hoax to make notable as a hoax; merely next day filler of "look how stupid the commie press is" infotainment. But the PROD was contested so here we are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete  North8000  (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My reasons are given below.  North8000  (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – Apparently the incident received global attention and is the subject of much ufology writing. It would be good for posterity to have a sober account on WP. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * while it may be a part of ufology, as sources the ufology content is inherently non acceptable as sources, particularly if the object is to create a "sober account". can you find any reliable sources that have discussed the incident that would allow us to actually  create encyclopedic coverage? because I wasnt. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not my field. But with more than 40,000 Google hits 25 years after the event, there would seem to be enough worldwide interest to justify keeping an entry about it. I'm not immediately convinced that all the UFO books are "inherently non acceptable", either: that seems brusque, and more an issue of editorial content, not notability. Like angelology, cryptozoology, and other outliers in academia, ufology has developed its own wealth of documentation, and Voronezh appears to loom rather large in it. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GHITS we actually need reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: I don't get it. I'm seeing sources put out by UPI, AP and the New York Times discussing this business in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, and that's scarcely "infotainment."  Done deal.  Period.  Those sources were in the article before this AfD was filed.  I'd like to AGF here, so perhaps the nom could explain what part of the GNG he feels those sources fail to satisfy, or -- in the alternative -- what explicit policy that supersedes the GNG of which he believes this article runs foul.   Ravenswing   01:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * those are all the same day filler simply playing up the fact that the Russian paper is turning into the Weekly World News. There is no demonstrated persistence of coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
 * The GNG doesn't require persistence of coverage. It requires that a subject be covered by multiple, reliable sources in significant detail.  Period.    Ravenswing   04:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * even if it meets GNG, it does not guarantee an article. it creates a presumption that we would be able to write an appropriate encyclopedia article. Given the content that is in the current sources, we cannot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the only news coverage of the actual topic was one writer who based his article entirely on talking with a few children. It looks like everything else is talking about / a derivitive of that coverage.  North8000  (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * perhaps a redirect to TASS and a one line bit there about how their publication of the UFO story made US news and became part of UFOlogy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * TASS is the most relevant other article presently, but, it's a bad fit. In proper detail it would be taken as an undue polemic.  GNG is met for an independent article, which is where it should go.  With other sources available, it is possible that people can develop a more useful understanding of this incident.  (I think it's pretty clear that officials in the U.S., Russia, and other countries encouraged UFO fever to some degree, but why?  Was it to keep citizens watching the skies for foreign planes?  To create a sense of human unity to make a way for detente?  To create a new mythology where aliens replaced angels as the divine messengers who spoke into the Ruler's ear?  To make cover for "alien abductions" to install very real listening/tracking devices?  Sort of stuff I'd like to see the readership be able to chew on further as sources on topics like these are accumulated and correlated) Wnt (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at our TASS article after I made the suggestion and agree that in the current state of the TASS article, it would not fit. And none of the other language versions of TASS are any more developed to build easily from there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the rest of your content, until there are reliable sources that delve into there, Wikipedians cannot do that ourselves. If you can produce such analysis, I would enthusiastically support keeping such an article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Wanting to keep it because it might someday be correlated and used to form conspiracy theories about governments manipulating the population isn't a good reason at all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If a person declines to say what a reader might do with an article, it's said that "there is no significance". You can WP:OR no-significance out of any and every AfD all day long and that's supposed to be a valid argument.  But the moment someone says hey, there could be significance, then that is impermissible speculation.  That is a rigged contest. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? We are at an AfD - claims of significance must actually be shown to actually exist, not just handwaved with a "There might be sources somewhere that might address this in an appropriate manner, or they might exist in the future." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete because all coverage is due to "News of the Weird" or "Slow News Day" phenomenon explicitly warned against in WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Voronezh. Coverage by mainstream sources indicates the topic is best known as a Tass story peculiar to Voronezh rather than an event in ufology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage there would be WP:UNDUE; it is best to keep something this specialized in its own article. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that article-length coverage at Voronezh would be undue, but the 3 or 4 line summary there is about right. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT as this does not seem to be an event of "lasting, historical significance". The article suggests that the sighting became "one of the most famous UFO and alien sightings in Russia", which would be enough to establish notability if true, but this claim has no context (during that week? in history? even 25 years later?) and more importantly no source. --McGeddon (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has three big-name media sources; that passes WP:GNG.  The only potential weak point I can see by that standard is that U.S. media sources might be argued not to be "independent" of Tass, being cold war and media rivals, but if you were to maintain that it would change how many articles about the Soviet Union are judged for any purpose.  The fact it's a mass delusion with no real basis is irrelevant - for example, we have articles about Bitcoin and several satanic ritual abuse witch-trials.  Once people deploy real resources based on a delusion it is no longer nonexistent.  Any invocation of WP:FRINGE is wrong because our mainstream sources are giving the overall "normal" point of view of commentators about the subject.  You don't say a subject itself is "fringe" based on your opinion of it. Wnt (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the three major US news sources are merely repetitions of what the TASS reported followed by... nothing. Merely fluff piece filler-o-the-day. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO WP:NOTNEWS applies twice over.....not news, and not news about a non-existent event.  IMHO someone at Tass wrote what some kids said about a non-existent event, their only source of information and then  a couple of papers wrote about what the Tass editor wrote,, with that being their only source of information.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It informs about TASS and about what people said. How many times does someone use some racist epithets and create an article-worthy controversy?  This is just another type of surprising speech leading to international curiosity. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it DIDNT create curiosity. After the initial "ha ha ha - TASS is The Weekly World News" no reliable sources have apparently done or said anything beyond that initial joke. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * After some ha ha's about Tass' "bizarre metamorphosis" into "supermarket-tabloid sensationalism" the NYT along with everyone else dropped the story. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - or more accurately WP:NOTEVENNEWSJUSTLAZYJOURNALISTSFILLERFLUFF AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. You cannot assume that the corrupt journalists made the story up out of laziness. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * so we assume there is even a grain of truth? WP:REDFLAG- we would certainly need more more and better sources than 1 TASS story and some US papers quoting it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to UFO sightings in Russia. The real story here always was the fact that TASS not only picked up the story but gave it a lot of coverage. But, taken that way, the story did attract a lot of international coverage at the time (and to some extent since), both as an indication of widespread credence given in Russia to UFO sightings and the willingness of the Soviet media under glasnost to move away from traditional Marxist-Leninist standards of news reporting. (Though, to be honest, UFO sightings in Russia could do with a fairly thorough rewrite, from the current rather short list of sightings to an article focussing on belief in UFO sightings by some Russians as a social phenomenon.) PWilkinson (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a very appropriate suggestion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a good compromise solution.  North8000  (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Only claim of notability is not even referenced D  P  09:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Hoax or not? (I don't believe in UFOs at all, nor I am a fan of the topic, for what it's worth) Such considerations for notability are irrelevant. It has been covered in multiple RS, especially ufology books (and well, what else should cover UFO sightings?), so WP:NOTNEWS definitely does not apply: this is not routine news at all. See, , , , . -- cyclopia speak! 17:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires coverage in reliable sources. UFOlogy books certainly dont qualify. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They are specialized sources on the topic. I may disagree with their conclusions on it,and I do -they are surely *biased*- but this doesn't make them any less useful for article writing and notability purposes. Biased sources are still RS. -- cyclopia speak! 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * thats a completely unsupportable position: "There are no reliable sources about this fringe topic so we should be able to use non-reliable sources because they are the ones that talk about this fringe topic." Nonsense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt per WP:NOTNEWS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ladies and Gentlemen! - I have scrubbed and buffed and will keep going for a little while this evening. I would also like to turn your attention to the utter hilarity of this thing. I believe this one definitely stands out as news. When the official communist newspaper tries to push it on you, and the Interior Ministry says they're ready to go hunt this thing, I think we've got ourselves some notability. Also, it was part of the super-stupid attempt by the Soviets to "be open" - because that's what open meant.... Anyway! Please do not salt without attempting to improve because the premise is laughable! And please do not look at the fine fair-weather coverage. It was in depth, the government took it ridiculously seriously, and I have the added joy of mentioning that radioactive isotopes don't mean jack!
 * I hope you will reconsider. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your assertions that this has any political significance are entirely unsupported by sources, and thus of no relevance to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy, you need to try and be more polite - and also more clear, because I'm not sure you're making your point very well. Assertions in deletion discussions do not need reliable sources to back them up, because deletion discussions are not articles. That is why there is no reference section in a deletion discussion, and why we allow opinions in deletion discussions, such as your opinion above. In this case, however, there are sources which back up what Panyd is saying: the Interior Ministry stated that they were going to deploy troops if necessary to counter any threat. UFOs in the cold war were not seen as "crazy aliens only seen by madmen" as they are today, but were instead seen as a real, unexplainable phenomenon that could pose a serious threat to the Soviet Union (or indeed, to NATO). I will go into this further in my keep vote below. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me)


 * Keep: I am all for getting rid of pseudo-scientific articles, as I believe are others here, but this article is not pseudo-scientific. It reports exactly what witnesses said had happened, and it debunks the report as well. The incident itself seems to have generated an awful lot of secondary coverage, such as here, and this Fire Officer's Handbook devotes most of a chapter to War and UFOs, with a fair chunk on Vorozenh. The Skeptical Enquirer writes about it, even. It's clear that this event, whether a hoax or not, whether real or fake, whether sourced with a multitude of sources or with only one or two, has had a clear and ongoing effect on the "ufologist" community, and by that standard alone, it should be included. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chase me ladies. The coverage satisfies GNG and the effects on a significant subculture (of ufology) were significant.  While I share a healthy skepticism (even a dislike) for the topic, that should not color the decision regarding its inclusion. Xoloz (talk) 18:18, 10 April 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.