Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haselbach encounter

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 per WP:V. Googleable sources are mostly in English and all from self-published Ufologist websites, about as far from WP:RS as one can get. Sandstein 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haselbach encounter

Haselbach encounter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I doubt that UFO websites should be considered reliable sources (although they may be acceptable for secondary sourcing, e.g. as references) and therefore I think that this article fails WP:V. I looked for non-ufological references to this event (e.g. newspaper articles), but I couldn't find anything. Stammer 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - if references are a problem just put {{Unreferencedarticle}} instead of the deletion request (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The problem is that the article describes an event from the pre-computer era. Resourcing is difficult and will take time, unless there are any Wikipedians who really want to plough through old German newspapers... Totnesmartin 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yours is a circular argument. It assumes that such sources exist. My point is that, once you regard UFO sites as unreliable, this article is built on nothing. Should Wikipedia act as a mirror for UFO sites? I doubt it. Stammer 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's the circular argument? And why are UFO sites unreliable per se? Granted, many are awful, but so are many music, travel and football sites. Totnesmartin 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I have to believe that "one of the best known UFO-landing reports from Germany" wouldn't be difficult to source. Someguy1221 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless reputable sources are found. Nick mallory 01:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: this event is notable in Europe, but Wikipedia's policies on non English language sources (plus the inability of many Americans to read them) can make it a little tricky to source this as well as it should be sources (There are those out there who would simply delete any German language sources outright regardless of their reliability). As for UFO websites being unreliable, that doesn't really come into play unless an extraordinary claim was made that required scientific validity to be established, which this page does not make. Treat it as an urban legend - Report on what is said to have happened and what is believed, which UFO sites can be relied upon to do. For anybody who doesn't know, the first source listed don that page is from a branch of Mufon, a notable UFO reporting group who can be relied upon to print accurate representations of "encounters as they are reported", even if they cannot be quoted a source for science topics. - perfectblue 15:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually there is no article about this "event" in German Wikipedia. Stammer 07:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Public belief in UFOs is higher in the US than in Germany. It goes without saying that there would be more UFO related entries here. perfectblue 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's their problem. How does it apply here? de.wikipedia has 590,000 articles, we have 1.8 million, so there are many things we're ahead of them on. Totnesmartin 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The "problem" here is that there is no source. Nothing. I am not sure that it puts us ahead of the Germans. An unsourced article is hardly better than no article. Stammer 17:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources here,[1]

Flying saucers in East germany (near top of page)quarter of the way down though it mostly seems to lead back to a CIA analysis of a Greek newspaper report. Not much to go on. Totnesmartin 20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess one may add a note stating that, though the "event" is supposed to have taken place in Germany, the article's source is a site devoted to paranormal phenomena quoting an article in a Greek newspaper allegedly found in declassfied CIA files. This sets new standards for WP:V. Stammer 04:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 :D Totnesmartin 08:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is a sliding scale. The more important the claim, the stronger the source must be, and vice versa. We're talking about people seeing lights in the sky, this is hardly WP:BLP or Redflag, you could source it from a tabloid or an episode of Coast to Coast, so long as you didn't make scientific claims. Treat as an urban legend if nothing else - perfectblue 18:01, 29 May 2007 (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.