Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Dean (Ufologist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Appears notable, also has reliable sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Dean (Ufologist)

Robert Dean (Ufologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability (the only sources are forums and the subject's own web site). Alksub 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete (<removed comment due to BLP>. See Ta bu shi da yu for any queries.) Nick mallory 07:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 08:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are 14,000 hits on Google for "Robert Dean"/"UFO"--that would seem to be adequate notability. The alleged NATO UFO incident with the purported secret report "The Assessment" seems interesting enough to keep the article. Keraunos 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
"by the time of Dean’s retirement from the military in 1976, he claims, the assessment was there were twelve different extraterrestial civilizations visiting Earth." 'purported' is a nice word for it. Nick mallory 12:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom due to lack of reliable sources. Keep, now that references have been added. "Cosmic Top Secret Clearance"?! I myself have Intergalactic Ultra Super Duper Security Clearance and can assure you there is no such security level. Clarityfiend 09:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Actually there is such a beast as "Cosmic Top Secret" [1], if we can consider the Canadian government a reliable source. Horrorshowj 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Ummm...I meant on my planet. Yeah, that's right. Clarityfiend 03:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is clearly notable, whatever else you might think of him. If the article needs refs, tag it as such rather than deleting it. The article has only existed for 3 days - it would have been helpful to tag it properly and allow some time for the article to be improved.--Michig 12:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've spent a few minutes finding additional information via google - the article now has independent sources. I've avoided adding links to ufo-conspiracy type sites as these would not be considered reliable by a lot of people, but there's no denying that among these circles, this guy is well known and has received a lot of coverage. You may think he's a 'lunatic' but that's not really a valid criterion for deleting articles.--Michig 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Since when has the 'mysterious universe forum', which you cite twice, been considered a reliable source for Wikipedia? Your other sources are his own website and another similar website. Oh, and an article from the Tuscon Weekly in 1995 which points out that 'Dean could be delusional, a monomaniac who sincerely believes his stories are true. He could be flat-out lying, spreading these tales for a free ticket to travel the world.' Nick mallory 14:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Your point is moot. WP:RS is not applicable in this case. We are talking about his notability within Ufology, not about the reliability of sources naming him. If 1 million clinically verified compulsive liars all wrote books about him he would be considered notable, even if their books were not considered reliable. - perfectblue 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Which forum would that be? I didn't add any such links/references, nor did I add any links to his own website. Are you confusing me with the original author of the article? I would agree that he may be insane/a liar/whatever, but does that mean he isn't notable?--Michig 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not only has he spoken in the University of Arizona about UFOs, I found this interview with a paranormal site that appears to be a reliable one with regards to UFOs.--Alasdair 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Your reliable source is 'a paranormal site that appears to be a reliable one with regards to UFO's'?!!?!? Nick mallory 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Such sources aren't inherently unreliable. Believe it or not, there are a handful of UFO researchers who are objective, level-headed, and scholarly. Jerome Clark is a good example. However, I do agree that that particular site seems rather juvenile. Zagalejo^^^ 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The reliability of the site shouldn't be an issue, all that should be an issue is that the site knows who he is and includes references to him, which helps us to establish notability within the field. - perfectblue 11:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
How about this then. Check the "About us" page on that site, and it suggests this one's rather authoritative with regards to UFOs.--Alasdair 03:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
So it says they're not alien spacecraft, so proving Dean is talking nonsense? Nick mallory 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That's irrelevant here, I'm afraid. We're debating his notability not his reliability. Let me explain this simply, a man can be a deranged crackpot and a compulsive liar, which makes him unreliable as a source. However, if he's famous for telling outrageous lies, then he's clearly notable. This man is widely quoted, which makes him notable. The fact that what he says might not be scientifically accurate is a whole other debate which has no place in a notability dispute. - perfectblue 11:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — I give no credence to an "alien" explanation for UFOs, but that doesn't mean a person can't be notable within the "UFO community". He appears to be sufficiently notable in that regard. — RJH (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question about whether he's notable in the 'UFO community' it's a question of whether he's notable by Wikipedia standards, which he clearly isn't. Nick mallory 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's a nothing argument. Ufology is notable in society in general and he is notable in ufology, therefore he is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page. Let me show you exactly how empty your argument is. There are 6 billion people in the world and the vast majority of them couldn't tell you who won the super bowl, therefore by your argument neither that team nor the super bowl can be notable. - perfectblue 20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I see no indicate of notability beyond trivial mentions. The NYT article quotes him as one of several people at a convention, not as being important there.There's no way anything in his own self-published work or websites can be used to support anything--especially notability. DGG (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
And exactly how many times has the NYT mentioned you as a convention attendee? Why would they mention a nobody? They clearly wouldn't, it would have no point to it. - perfectblue 20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He was in the armed forces which is a fact. He claims to have seen government files during his time working- fact. There are plenty of videos of him on the internet to support this article. He is more than worthy of an article. He has also been interviewed on many radio stations including Coast to Coast AM which is a national program.DestinationAndromeda 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Being in the armed forces or 'seeing government files' is hardly a reason for being on Wikipedia. Neither are 'videos on the internet' or appearing on conspiracy radio shows. Nick mallory 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree Nick. He is a minor celebrity. DestinationAndromeda 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I've tried the "Coast to Coast defense" before. It didn't work. Zagalejo^^^ 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Only because people won't accept exactly how popular the show is. - perfectblue 20:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Regardless of whether what he says has any basis in fact the coverage that he has gotten by saying it makes him a noteworthy figure within his specific field and within popular belief in general. When he speaks people listen, it makes no difference if they are listening because they believe him or so that they can debunk him later on, it;s the numbers that matter here. Think notoriety rather than reliability. - perfectblue 20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: Dean is notable for having won an anti-discrimination suit against his bosses. He claimed that he was being discriminated agaisnt because of his belief in UFOs and the courts agreed with him. - perfectblue 08:13, 30 September 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.