Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmelo Papotto

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', which defaults to keep, based on the discussion here and the age (20 days old) of the debate. No prejudice against a re-nomination at a later date. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carmelo Papotto

Carmelo Papotto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

See nomination note below, bad wiki formatting broke the nomination. Travellingcari (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note because I broke the nomination. See also UFO sightings in Libya, which I nominated below. 23 | ghits, slightly more without quotes, none of which are reliable. There are some copyvio issues see answers.com which is verbatim, although there's no way to see which one is the violation. I can read the Portuguese source and that's not reliable either. }} Travellingcari (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source? Sorry, but we're talking about a UFO report here, not some contentious political or civil issues. The threshold for reliability for a UFO story is basically "can be trusted not to make the whole thing up themselves". See Verifiability, not truth, editors need to prove that they are not personally making this up, not that the story is true. Even if the story was faked by the newspaper, it can still be a notable and reliable example of the contents of a fake story. - perfectblue (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment While you're right that there's nothing specifically against UFO sightings in Wikipedia:SOURCES#Sources, I think it's a highly questionable source. That's my personal opinion, hence the nomination. I don't think it was a notable UFO sighting, otherwise it would have garnered attention in mainstream press, like this incident which was later explained. So yes I think it fails notability and reliability, hence my comment for deletion. Travellingcari (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We're still talking about a UFO sighting here, aren't we? The Mainstream press typically only pick up on UFO sightings on slow news days or when something particularly weird happens. This goes double when it's a foreign news story. Besides, have oyu actually checked the foreign press? Remember that Europeans newspapers don't post online as mch as American news papers and they often don't have English language editions. Have you tried looking this story up in the UFO press to see which news sources they cite? Personally, I don't consider CNN any more or less reliable than smaller press when covering UFOs. What we need to demonstrate here is that there was coverage of a claim, not to demonstrate that there is any reliability to the claim. Notability is built on coverage, not credibility. Some things are in fact primarily notable for their complete lack of credibility. - perfectblue (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment well now that UFO sightings in Libya failed its own AfD, which was barely a re-direct to this article.... I still go back to WP:RS and the guideline that "'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.'" Now while you may be right according to the "sources should be appropriate..." aspect, I still think the fact checking is an issue. How do you fact check this? Did anyone interview him? Were there any corroborating reports? There's where my issue of reliability is. This was a flash in the pan news story, not a long lasting tale of an unsolved UFO so on that grounds, no I still don't think it's notable but we'll see what happens as the outcome of this. That's why I like these discussions. And to comment in one place, yes I read the Italian and Portuguese articles and none appeared to source anything other than a report that he saw something. There don't appear to be any primary interviews with the source. Now while those may have been covered in radio or something, how much coverage would an alleged UFO sighting have received then? I don't know, I wasn't alive to know. Travellingcari (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:RS is only a guideline, you may disregard elements that are not appropriate, secondly, when you are judging WP:RS you need to consider what reliability actually means in context. For example, in science reliability means that the source must have scientific credentials or at the very least be quoting somebody who does. For UFOs reliability basically means 'can be trusted not to be making things up'. You say "none appeared to source anything other than a report that he saw something", actually, this is right in line with policy. Verifiability, not truth. These sources verify that he claimed to have seen something, which is all that is needed. Seriously, we're talking little green space men here, there's no way that this article can be mistaken for a serious piece requiring a high levels of sourcing. - perfectblue (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, we disagree. We'll see what happens. I don't think it meets the guidelines, you do. We'll see what happens because whatever it is, it is. Travellingcari (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This incident received some attention from Italian media (It actually happened in Libya, but the guy and the company are Italian.), on 1954 (being not notable outside a Italian-speaking nation is not a criteria for deletion at the English Wikipedia). Also, about the copyvio issues, I think its obvious who's violating, first because there's a Wikipedia logo above the page you listed above, and second because I wrote the article, using the Portuguese source as the main reference. And finally, I hope you didn't rely on your Spanish to read and judge the Portuguese source (a não ser que você realmente entenda português). Victao lopes (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment, no I can read Portuguese but not enough to warrant listing it on my user page since I don't feel comfortable translating or proofing. Can you point me to the Italian coverage, because Google doesn't have much of anything. The issue that I saw with the Portuguese article was not that it exists but whethther it qualifies under the reliable sources guidelines. Travellingcari (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment No problem if you don't feel comfortable, you can just list it with WP:Babel. However, no, Goggle really can't find anything about it, I'm just repeating what is said at the article and at the source. Also, the the reliable sources guidelines says "In general, the most reliable sources are [...] magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses;". The problem is that Revista Vigília is an electronic magazine, it is net-based, so it might not be a reliable source for some readers. I, particularly saying, trust it, because it has pages about famous incidents (such as Roswell, Mantell, Betty & Barney Hill, etc.), and those pages are well-written and don't say anything wrong. But others may not. If you want my opinion, here it goes: Carmelo may not be notable for some, but may be for others. He is an example of (alleged) contact with extraterrestrials. How many articles like that do we have, and how many articles about songs who fail WP:Notability for songs are here at Wiki? There are so many crap articles here at Wikipedia, and you had to AfD-nominate this one. Not that I'm mad at you, I'm just saying what I think (besides, that's what this debate is for). Well, but that's my opinion, if you want my reasons, see the first half of this post. Victao lopes (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC

Comment: If you want to blame someone for this AfD, blame Special:Random, which is how I found it :-D. Actually, not true. That's where I found UFO sightings in Libya, which linked to this article. Whether Revista Vigília will meet the standards for reputability, I'm not certain. That's why I brought it here, for discussion. Let's see what others have to say about it. Travellingcari (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I see you also nominated UFO sightings in Libya for deletion, and it seems that it will be deleted, in fact. Well, but this article wasn't created by me, anyway. OK, let's wait to the others. I only hope they won't consider what I created "nonsense", that really disturbs me, you know? Victao lopes (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I'm not sure what counts as 'reliable sourcing' for articles on UFO sightings, but this one seems like it might be notable. I'd rather the decision be made by someone who can read Portuguese, though. Terraxos (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: While not notable in America, this is notable overseas due to press coverage and presence in local/regional media. There is nothing in Wiki-regs saying that notability has to be Anglophone. - perfectblue (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment agreed, however there wasn't significant coverage in Italian or Portuguese of this that wasn't a rehashing of the same info and nothing at all in the news archives.

Rehashing? You mean that the different media all told the same story? That doesn't mean anything when it comes to a UFO report. what matters is that they covered it. It's not as if this is a serious political or social story. - perfectblue (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 'Delete unless there are exact references cited in reliable sources in any language. Then it can be rewritten in an appropriate paragraph.DGG (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per DGG, with caveat that sources must evidence reliability of subject. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (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.