Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Ufology

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. Ifnord 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Ufology

User:Vufors wrote this on his/her user page, then moved it to the main article. I'm not sure if it's a copyvio, or if it's complete nonsense. You decide.-- BRIAN0918 22:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-26 22:29

• Keep Interesting new infomation. Seems to be a work in progress that will tighten up over time. NO valid reason to delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.83.73.188 (talk • contribs).
  • Anonymous user, may be the same as the one below. Check ISP address in above History Tab.
• Keep, Detailed info, just needs work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.63.42.174 (talk • contribs).
  • Anonymous user, may be the same as the one above. Check ISP address in above History Tab.
• Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. Stifle 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified piffle. Ambi 09:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no valid reason for deletion supplied. Blowback000 09:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 09:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- weak sources, and mostly, as mentioned above, unverified. - Longhair 10:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ambi and Longhair. Sarah Ewart 10:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense.--nixie 10:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is poorly written at this stage but appears to relate to an actual group. Whilst requiring content as well as conjunction editing and further verification, it appears a valid side-link to the accepted page ufology. I agree with those others above that say No valid reason has been given for deletion at this time. VirtualSteve 10:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ...erm, it's completely unverified. That is kind of a major reason to delete it.Ambi 09:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry Ambi - don't you think that if we deleted everything that was completely unverified at its first blush on Wiki - we would have less than half of the current contents on the pedia? VirtualSteve 10:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Besides it seems that User:Vufors is adding verification links as we debate the keep/delete of the article. I suggest that he/she looks at the Wiki:Manual of style on how to provide a correct opening paragraph and then we can all get in to help clean up the article in general.VirtualSteve 11:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Subject of interest to certain people, like any other article. The article should be cleaned up, not deleted. Robertbrockway 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and (continue the) cleanup. Subject matter is notable. Andjam 23:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is not in question, of course, since notability is not a deletion criterion. Verifiability is in question. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-31 00:05
    • Wikipedia:Deletion policy says that articles lacking verification should not be deleted, only articles that cannot ever be verified. Andjam 04:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs a cleanup, but promises to be interesting and thorough article. Cnwb 03:29, 31 January 2006 (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.