Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopeh Incident

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeh Incident[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NFRINGE applies here and, unfortunately, I think this article clearly fails. The one mainstream sources is an instance from a "News of the Weird"-type article in the Daily Telegraph. Simply not notable enough for an article because independent sources commenting on this "incident" are not forthcoming. jps (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The sources are a photo from the weird section of a newspaper and a fringe site which has just the same photo and some speculation. Neither's a reliable source and a search turns up nothing better.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG as non-notable fringe incident. Chinese Wikipedia article has no additional sources (Telegraph article only per the English version). A search in Chinese turns up nothing of use as a reliable source. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: source fail. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I'll take care of it in new page for less reliable sightings to List of minor UFO sightings, to restore when ready. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There already is a List of reported UFO sightings which includes this; breaking out the 'less reliable' sightings into a new list makes little sense: reliability is pretty subjective and you can argue they're all unreliable in that few people would say they constitute evidence of the existence of UFOs.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's more that the cultural impact of the sighting is less than that of other, more notable, UFO 'sightings'. Alas I cannot find anything that would allow for this to be included in such a list. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This pains me to my very core Delete - notable in fringe circles but definitely does not meet WP notability. I can't find any non-fringe sources to back up any claims, nor anything to bolster the article. I would be fine with userfication though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe and non-notable. Andrew³²⁷ 06:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.