Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy

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. -Doc^g 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy

Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears non-notable. Sources do not seem to support article's claims. Zero ghits. Contested prod, without comment. Serpent's Choice 09:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced and not notable. Nick mallory 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the revisions being made to the current article in respect to referencing in particular. Also feel free to edit the page or send me information of any sort regarding how to make this page a meaningful contribution to wikipedia. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roughpikey (talk • contribs)

Regarding the references at the current time. I don't have a clue what the Akaroa News is; it gets no valid ghits, and it's certainly not the newspaper for Akaroa, which is the Akaroa Mail. The Journal of Regressive Therapy is not a scholarly journal; the only ghit is the ZoomInfo profile of its "editor", suggesting it is some sort of unreviewed religious publication. Spirituality and Healing is too noisy to Google easily, although this focused search comes up blank. Rose Hargrove is real, but her paper doesn't appear to have been published anywhere except aliensandchildren.org (don't miss the bit at the bottom about building thought screens!!). Serpent's Choice 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless the sources listed can be verified - a "Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy" web search produces no unique hits, also no results on google books, news archive or scholar. Addhoc 11:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article is a fine example of credible looking nonsense. Endorsing something non-notable based on something that may not even exist is crazy! Boston2austin 12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies I have erroneously listed the Akaroa Mail as the Akaroa News. With regards to remarks made by Serpent's choice I find the criticism of one of the sources being "some sort of unreviewed religious publication' to be unfair. Wikipedia has many pages that have almost no references e.g MoPy Fish, or references from one website. Finding papers or journals that are "scientific" or 'academic' for the topic of alien abduction is not really possible. It is a totally different paradigm and therefore to judge it's legitimacy based on this is truly unfair. So please consider that I am trying to bring as much legitimacy to this page as possible. Also in regards to Boston2Austin's comments regarding "Endorsing something non-notable based on soemthings that may not even exist", I do not belive that by publishing an article wikipedia by any means endorses the subject. Take for example the "cock and ball torture" page, which remarkably has one reference. Does wikipedia endorse this?

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. meshach 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Science deals with reality. This article only deals with a different 'paradigm' because its subject doesn't exist in reality. If there really were alien craft buzzing this small Australian town I think 'science' would be all over it. The only way it could be included would be if it was discussed by third parties e.g. major newspapers and books. It isn't. There aren't any credible references for this article, it's not a concept discussed elsewhere, therefore it shouldn't be on wikipedia because it's not 'notable'. Nick mallory 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• With regards to the comments made by Nick Mallroy there is a paradigm that deals with events that are not part of what the general public would class as reality. Paranomal psychology explores the phenomen of alien aductions, ghost sightings and even astral travel just to name a few. Please google this topic for further information. As for "alien craft buzzing this small Australian town", alien craft do not neccesarily make their presence known to the everyday Australian by "buzzing" their way into town. Often alien craft will operate on stealth mode when coming within close range of human settlements. Obviously aliens wouldn't want scientists to know of their forays into towns such as Coober Pedy. This would bring unwanted attention to their scientifc experiments and possibly even a military prescence. Just quickly another thing to point out is that your comments are actually quite insensitive to the experiences of those who have been lucky enough to survive an extraterrestrial encounter. By dissmissing their experience in no more than a few sentences, you effectively demoralise and retraumatize these indiviudals.

I fully agree with you that such 'individuals' are in dire need of urgent treatment by properly qualified mental health practitioners. On another point, if the aliens want to keep their visits to Coober Pedy a secret, you know, by flying in on 'stealth mode', then what are they going to make of an article on Wikipedia revealing their covert activities to the world? Is it safe to keep this article? Nick mallory 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I am tempted by the mere fact that this article pretends extraterrestrial encounters are real. I am convinced to vote delete, though, for the lack of notability assertion and lack of independent sources. Someguy1221 09:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please note the amendments made to the current article. Namely the use of 'scientific' sources such as the Jounal for the Scientific Study of Religion and Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. I hope this remedies the "lack of independent sources". Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roughpikey (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Comment - none of the web links you have provided mention Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy. Addhoc 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As ad hoc has just pointed out the new sources in the article don't have anything to do with 'extraterrestrial encounter therapy' so don't affect the case for the retention of this article. That there is definitely a positive correlation between educational achievement and belief in pseudo-science doesn't prove that pseudo-science is true. Science is a method of thinking, not an attribute of a person. Use of 'alternative therapies' is overwhelmingly middle class for instance but it doesn't mean that distilled water cures cancer. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing a UFO, even on 'stealth mode' land in Australia but there's just no hard evidence to suggest that this has happened. There isn't a different 'paradigm' regarding notability on wikipedia I'm afraid. Where are the non trivial, reputable sources for "Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy" regarding these supposed alien visitations in this small Australian town? Nick mallory 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Before I respond to Nick Mallroy's comments in defense of the article on EET, I would like to firmly state that this article should not be deleted. I feel that most people's reasons for deletion come from a lack of belief in extraterrestrials or related phenomena. Nick Mallroy has stated that "a positive correlation between educational achievement and belief in pseudo-science doesn't prove that pseudo-science is true". I don't believe the evidence presented in this article, and please correct me if I'm wrong Roughpikey, was intended to prove the "truth" of pseudo-science namely extraterrestrial contact. Rather the evidence is really a demonstration that there are flaws in the arguement often used that alien abductees are in fact poorly educated and mentally unstable. Also let's be careful with the use of the word "truth". Firstly what exactly is the truth, is it not simply what people believe to be true? Rather than something that is absolute. The intellectuals of the past believed it to be the truth that the world was flat. Was this the truth? Also let's be careful with using 'hard evidence' as a means of judging the existence of something. The many religions of the world cannot provide 'hard evidence' of the existence of their deities. Sure there is a dearth of literature chronicling the existence of God and the many other deities, but in the same respect there is an abdundance of literature on alien aductions and contact. Therefore what 'hard evidence' can be provided of alien contact in Coober Pedy other than the word of people who have experienced this event? I am hoping Roughpikey that either yourself or someone you know will lend their story to the EET article as 'hard evidence'. Thank you for your this article Roughpikey and I hope you don't mind if I make some additions or conduct some editing. Thanks again.
• Comment. There is no hard evidence, not even light evidence (witness reports are not evidence, Scientifically, as humans can lie and forget) that extraterrestrials have actually visited the Earth, let alone abduct anyone. There are a number of confusing, seemingly inexplicable events that have occured in the past, but not being able to explain something is not evidence of anything except that you lack a good explanation, or a good amount of information on what happened. As far as religious belief goes, no, there is no hard evidence that alleged histories are correct. However, I think you misunderstand why we are having this discussion, so firstly I shall explain why we have articles on religious beliefs. It is not Wikipedia's mission to become an an arbiter of truth, but merely to record notable theories, beliefs, events, people, etc. Religious beliefs are here because they are considered notable, most simply for being held by so many people currently, and being so pivotal to understanding history. The reason this article is being nominated for deletion is the lack of evidence of notability, and the lack of reliable, independent sources confirming any possible notability. And true, your article does not attempt to prove that people have actually been abducted, but rather it seems to assume that it's true. This is besides the point, however. Taking a fringe view like this makes the article look bad, but it's quite fixable. The actual issue, as I said, is one of notability. Someguy1221 07:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Science is the method we use to determine what the truth is. This involves testing a disprovable hypothesis against evidence and making predictions which can themselves be tested. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact that you believe something to be true does not make it true. The Earth was a sphere even when people believed it to be flat. There should be an article about 'UFO's on Wikipedia because it's a subject which is widely discussed, even if there's no good evidence that extraterrestrials are visiting earth. There's no real coverage of this particular 'encounter therapy', so it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Why would ET visitations be exempt from the tenets of science anyway? Why would their existence be so mysterious if it was real? You ask if there's hard evidence to prove the truth of religions, well, no there isn't. Religions aren't science, they're notable for reasons which have nothing to do with the doubtful objective reality of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can't argue, 'I believe in Coober Pety UFOs and you don't so it's equally likely either way'. The burden of evidence is on you, and you haven't got any. This discussion isn't about the existence or otherwise of UFOs, it's about the notability of this article and it's just not notable. Nick mallory 15:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all thank you for your comments Nick Mallroy, I appreciate you enlightening me on the topics of truth and science before getting to the meat of the problem as you see it - notability. I would really like to question the comments "The fact that you believe something to be true does not make it true" and "You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts". The truth as we know it for the most part is presented to us by science. When I say the 'truth' I mean things that can be tested via the scientific method. However the problem is that like any field, the weakest link in science is the human factor. Any scientist could carry out research with the utmost rigour and yet still not have his or her findings published. Why? The answer is quite simple - people. If a scientist presents a study that shows results of no statistical significance the likelihood of these findings being published decreases - the file-drawer problem [1]. Also if the major journals present research within a certain paradigm and the scientist who wants publication thinks in another, the article is not likely to be published. Therefore the findings are not published and we don't know about new evidence. Does this mean that the 'facts' this scientist presents are not facts? No, but it does mean that we do not know of them until a paradigm shift occurs or we don't find out about them at all. Therefore because science is so skeptical of the existence of aliens any literature suggesting it to be the truth will not likely be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Therefore what we know as the 'truth' is limited to what people deem to be worthy of being a truth. This means that in many ways groups of scientists are entitled to their own opinions and 'their own facts'. These in turn become the facts of the general population who do not care to question, have a genuine faith in science or wouldn't have the knowledge to test them even if they wanted to. Also in many fields of science a principle of normalising data is employed in which outliers are removed as they do not fit data gained from what is deemed to be the normal population. Therefore anything that appears to be an anomaly is judged to be unworthy of being a 'truth'. Since alien abductions or sightings in fact fall outside of what is deemed to be the norm, these events are judged to be unworthy of being a truth. Finally one of the important factors in the scientific method is control[2]. To be able to stick the scientific process of research you need to be able to control the subject of your testing in some way. In this way you can get a broad sample of the data rather than an opportunistic collection of data. This is the problem alien abductees and those who have seen aliens face. They were not prepared with scientific equipment to record their encounters with aliens. Rather they have had to present to society with nothing more than a memory and then subsequently get ridiculed by society for their efforts. Scienctists are unlikely to ever be able to scientifically test the existence of aliens until they can control the appearance of aliens. Therefore we can see that in many ways science, with all its benefits, has become much like the Church once was, in it's control of the facts/truths people are allowed to believe. Thank you.

• Wikipedia concerns itself not with what is true in the universal sense, but with what is notable and published by reliable sources. It is a tertiary source. The encyclopedia does recognize that theories outside of mainstream science may — at times — have a place; guidelines for such situations are located here. But regardless of the presence or absence of underlaying truth, this article does not appear to meet those standards. Serpent's Choice 11:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok so notability is the main problem and I have read Wikipedia's information on that but I don't really understand it. I really need someone to explain it to me because it seems like what 'notability' really is isn't something concrete. In advance, thanks for any help. Roughpikey

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.