Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UAPx

UAPx

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

UAPx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

complete vanity spam about a non notable, obscure UFO research group (seriously, the "doctors" are linked to...imdb?!) with no coverage in reliable academic/scientific journals and only brief passing mentions from random people in interviews. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

GNG: How is the above ad hominem deemed acceptable here? seriously, the "doctors" are linked to...imdb?! The author linked to IMDB when he/she should have linked to established university faculty pages at SUNY Albany. How is that in any way reflective of the qualifications of those linked? — Answer: Obviously, it is not. The aforementioned scientists are tenured physics professors at a US research university, each leading independent federally-funded research groups of their own. From Wikipedia guidelines: Editors are not expected to know everything. Anyone acting in good faith may contribute. The organization is covered in multiple secondary sources, e.g. Ex-Military, NASA Veterans form UFO Research Group or This Silicon Valley Startup Is Dedicated to Detecting UFOs Off the California Coast. Did deletionist trolls take over all free reign precluding even a smattering of due diligence? WP:TOOSOON it may well be, but the above bias colours the entire debate in bad faith from the outset. Your Kangaroo court is now in session. 🤖Not the droid you're looking for (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)— Not the droid you're looking for (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

i joined the social media of this UFO group to have a look and can confirm there is an effort to brigade this page for support. this comment is a very good example of this, as can be seen by the fact it shares many of the exact buzz words as the other menbers of UAPx below Fafrotsky (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC) — Fafrotsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Doubling down on an ad hominem with yet another ad hominem? I've no part of any gossip group or effort to ‘brigade.’ It's the content that counts. Parent comment engaged in deliberate mischaracterization. Those big bad ‘buzzwords?’ Not so much, each being sourced from the references themselves. WP:AGF. Not everyone whose perspective differs from your own is part of a conspiracy. 🤖 Not the droid you're looking for (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy, no, brigading is obvious from the above post. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

One issue that plagues UFology is “instant gratification” - historically, a video comes out, a slew of folks make comments on it and arguments happen with zero final determination as to its legitimacy. I can assure you that UAPx is not an "obscure UFO research group."

They aren’t playing that game, and people mistake thier silence for a lack of work. I can assure you this isn’t happening with UAPx.

Almost a year ago, their team signed an agreement with a producer. The abbreviated version of the agreement was this: In exchange for the producer covering all of their expenses and giving them access to the UAPx team and activities, UAPx would do an expedition. The location was selected as Catalina Island. The budget wasn’t large. They were only given 5 days, 4 of them were used for actual research.

They honestly never expected to capture anything given the time constraints and the working conditions - but They did. They STILL DO NOT KNOW what it is they captured. In figuring that out they are/have:

1. written, created and tested custom artificial intelligence neural nets which are now analyzing 600 hours of FLIR video. This took almost a year to create - it never existed before. Now that they have this neural net, future analysis doesn’t need to wait for a year to begin.
2. created custom machine learning applications that analyze images to output probability percentages of the size and shape of objects seen in the video. This needed (and needs) trained. They have to input every basic geometric shape along with all known aircraft, drone, missile and targeting pod the civilian world and military world uses - then run the system for millions of iterations on each shape to get the machine learning system to output an accurate probability index of a match/no match.
3. They are STIll fighting the United States Government to obtain satellite imagery - you can see their denied and delayed FOIAs on their Twitter and discord.
4. They did obtain a mountain of data from 3rd party agencies such as CalTech’s “LIGO” and the USGs NOAA - they are still in the process of parsing that data to find any correlations between statistical anomalies which may be buried in that data with the times of their captures. This requires a 60 hour a week position by a computational astrophysicist- which they just onboarded a week ago. (Welcome Dr. Ben Placek, Ph.D.) and please thank the continuing and tireless efforts of Dr. Matthew Szydagis, Ph.D.)
5. As a startup company, their administration team is constantly responding to threads of complaint, social media issues, website maintenance, fund raising and new onboarding and evaluations. This is their contribution as they aren’t physicists.
6. The peer review process, after submission, is not under their control. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to write a peer-review article in a respected journal that suffers from stigma caused by 80 years of pseudo-science? Once the papers are finalized (which they are not because the data is still being analyzed) then the process takes weeks at best and many months as expected. Their writing and findings must be reviewed by whichever Ph.Ds the journal selects (a blind process to them) and all questions, comments, and concerns must be addressed by UAPx with a re-submission. This is what guarantees that the final output has withstood the scrutiny of peer-review science, not just knee-jerk social media wanting bias confirmation.

I’m sorry that people have been programmed for this idea of instant gratification - but this just goes to show how little ACTUAL science has occurred in this field. When you do it right, these things take a LOT of time.

But an "obscure ufo research group" UAPx is not - having a full length feature-film about UAPx as well as an episode of History's "The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch" depicting their approach to research does not make an "obscure UFP research group"

FOR THE PEER REVIEW PUBLISHED PAPERS, please see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514271/ by Dr. Kevin Knuth of UAPx as well as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14667302/ OSIRIS UAP (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)— OSIRIS UAP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Furthermore, UAPx is even referenced in other scientific publications - for example (and already included in the article is: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.04438.pdf "Multistatic radar measurements of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena by cell and open access radio networks" by Karl Svozil∗ Institute for Theoretical Physics, TU Wien, Wiedner Hauptstrasse 8-10/136, 1040 Vienna, Austria (Dated: March 17, 2022)which directly references UAPx on page 2 and in the publication's citations. OSIRIS UAP (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you please be more concise and stop diatribe bombing this AFD? Also read WP:RS and wP:NOT. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The Skinwalker Ranch is on History TV, which insn't a reliable source. The other sources are published by a member of the group, not about the group. None of these are usable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

OSIRIS UAP - The two journal articles that you listed above (here and here) do not provide coverage of any kind in regards to the article subject. The first article is a journal that documents the mathematics involved with the estimation of flight characteristics of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) - nothing about the article subject itself. The second article is just an abstract involving the use of computational techniques to solve difficult and complex problems and equations. The other reference you provided, which was a link to this document here also fails to provide any kind of coverage regarding the organization. I still fail to be shown or provided with any kind of references or sources that comply with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Do you have any? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete all sources are from their website. The Arxiv pre-print server isn't a reliable source and the two papers cited above don't help either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  There are plenty of sources that are not from the UAPx website, ergo your assertion that "all sources are from their website" is manifestly incorrect.

  Regarding Dr Knuth's paper; he is the VP of UAPx. Therefore, the published paper is not only directly relevant to my article about UAPx, but his position with the organisation also informs regarding its nature as a scientifically grounded research group. That was the point of that reference. The criticism has been raised that UAPx is somehow "not scientific". The core team consists of 4 professional physicists - amongst them, Associate Professor in the Department of Physics at the University at Albany, Dr Knuth. He has a published article in a respected peer reviewed journal pertaining to UAP. As UAPx vice president, I would argue that this demonstrates the organisation is a science focused research group.

  This is Wikipedia - which is supposed to contain factual information about notable organisations. My article did precisely that - it claimed to do no more and no less. Cosmoid (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Cosmoid - The only references cited in the article are from the organization's website. This constitutes a primary source and cannot be used to determine the notability of an article subject. If there are other references that are reliable, secondary, and independent of the article subject that cover the subject primarily (not in passing mention or while covering a different subject or topic), please by all means, list them here so that I can take a look at them. I'll be more than happy to assist you should you have any questions, or have these other sources that you can provide. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This source, for example, speaks to the notability of the organisation. It also quotes UAPx VP Dr Kevin Knuth. Granted it is not *entirely* about UAPx, however this is more than just a name-check.

https://www.space.com/2022-turning-point-study-ufos-uap Cosmoid (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Cosmoid - Thank you for the link. Looking at the information provided in the reference you linked me to, it does make some passing mention of UAPx, but does not cover this organization as the jounral's primary topic or story. While this certainly can be used to cite a very small amount of content that might be added to the Wikipedia article, this reference alone doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. To quote an important statement on that page, an article subject or topic can be presumed to be notable if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." To explain, there must exist enough significant coverage of this article subject in secondary reliable sources to where a full and complete article can be written that where all content is either attributable to reliable sources, or directly attributed to them (meaning that all content is verifiable and able to be referenced by reliable sources). I'm afraid that I don't see that this necessary level of coverage exists... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for considering the points I have raised. Whilst I maintain that I believe the tone, nature and intent of this article merits notability - being that UAPx is a reasonably well known UAP scientific research group with a host of highly credentialed professional scientists - I acknowledge that in terms of the 'letter of the Wikipedia law', one might make the case that additional secondary sources would certainly enhance my article's notability. I will endeavour to seek these out, and am also looking forward to the publication of the group's scientific papers later this year, which I hope would lend even greater weight to my case for UAPx's inclusion in Wikipedia. Cosmoid (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Oshwah - I have another reference. This is *about* UAPx as its primary subject matter:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group/ Cosmoid (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And, another link specifically about UAPx, Oshwah: https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost Cosmoid (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

OK these are seemingly better sources (which is good that you have found some articles which discuss the subject specifically, thanks for that). I would just comment on Vice as I can't comment on PopularMechanics.com for the moment, It is considered to on WP:RS to have 'no consensus on the reliability' of the publication, while this doesn't immediately rule out it does not lead very well as one of your main sources for establishing notability (but is better then anything currently anyway). Tweedle (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive engagement Oshwah, I appreciate that. I'll continue to seek additional reference sources. Cosmoid (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh no this is me Tweedle, apologies, I should have responded under your comment underneath mine! Tweedle (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah I didn't notice it was your name at the end there - either way thank you for the feedback! Cosmoid (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Please reinstate this very useful and relevant Wikipedia page. UAPx is comprised of reputable former NASA and PhD level scientists, reputable military veterans who are devoted to the scientific process, and UAPx has been strongly endorsed by world renown physicist Michio Kaku and other celebrities. Mungermentalmodel (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) — Mungermentalmodel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Saying two peer reviewed articles from government websites "don't help" hardly constitutes a sound argument for dismissing them as relevant. Mungermentalmodel (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  They don't help as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I find this to be a very subjective argument. How do you define notable? How do you define what is a passing mention vs a more substantial mention? Praxidicae is putting the word doctors in quotes, implying that UAPx isn't comprised of people with doctorate degrees, which it is. Here you can see Michio Kaku and William Shatner participating in a documentary about UAPx and talking at length about them: (search youtube for "A Tear in the Sky Trailer") I'd hardly call this a non notable group with only passing mentions by people. Please reinstate this useful page that has been taken down by someone who I would say is trolling. Mungermentalmodel (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

ok now you have to be kidding. this account is obviously a sock puppet that is unabashedly shilling for this UFO group, its specially obvious in the language you use Fafrotsky (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Mungermentalmodel - Wikipedia's notability guidelines are available to be reviewed by navigating to this policy page. A helpful section within this policy page is here, which explains Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It would seem to me the UAPx group meets this burden by being mentioned in a peer reviewed article written by a former NASA AMES research scientist who has a PhD in physics. This is not a group of people looking to make money, these are scientists who brave ridicule and are doing the good work of promoting the scientific process in a field that's hotly debated and filled with quacks. They're using scientific instruments and just want a platform to support the honest effort to bring the unbiased truth to this topic. I'm sure they'll be happy to make any improvements to their page to satisfy requirements. I see them as being taken seriously by the scientific community which is a rare and welcome occurrence when it comes to UAPs. Mungermentalmodel (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Key here is being "mentioned", the article isn't about them directly, only in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

speedy delete Bad and dishonest sourcing, obvious AD language ("popular movie tear in the sky"), little notability, lack of scientific rigor and likely sockpuppeting from one of the menbers of the organization Fafrotsky (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Fafrotsky - Which speedy deletion criterion do you believe that this article meets? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:G11 Fafrotsky (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Fafrotsky - The article is not worded in a manner that constitutes blatant advertising or promotion, and is not eligible for G11. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you, i am new here and open to criticisms Fafrotsky (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Fafrotsky - No problem! Assisting new Wikipedia editors and users is part of the duties and responsibilities that I regularly carry out on Wikipedia. If you run into any more questions, please don't hesitate to contact me by messaging me on my user talk page. I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

As I have already explained - and as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the comments - "popular" was in reference to being made for a popular audience - as opposed to niche demographic, like for example a video presentation at a scientific conference.

What, exactly, lacks "scientific rigour"? The article was not about a scientific theory. It was about a research group. Cosmoid (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Then say 'mainstream'? Come on everyone knows the connotation of the word 'popular' in the phrase; 'The popular movie included commentary by well known physicist (...)'. Look I can even re-word it for you 'The movie was released with the intended market of a mainstream auidence and featured physicist (...).' Tweedle (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to replace the word "popular" with "mainstream". For what it's worth: the use of "popular" was not used with the *intention* to convey a subjective or objective measurement of the movie's audience size or ratings, and it is commonly used in the way in which I did intend it in British English (where I live) - i.e., to denote its appeal to a popular, as opposed to a niche audience.

In any case, given that I pledge to change that word to "mainstream" once I am able to edit the page (it is locked, ergo I cannot make changes at the moment), I'd request that you reconsider the aspect of your objection that is based on this phrase. Cosmoid (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - Majority of non-unique and unique sources are from this organisations own website, produced by the subject organisation such as the 2 research papers linked (both here fall under primary sources and are Source's 1 to 11), or from sites affiliated with the organisation such as Source 20 for example. Furthermore, links to sites which are not affiliated only mention the subject briefly;

• Source 13 only mentions the subject in one line quote; 'Fundraising is the hardest part. [The nonprofit] UAPx is one, and the Galileo Project [at Harvard University] is another.'
• Source 14 is a copy-paste of a blog post on Medium by the organisation themselves.
• Source 15 is better, much more proper coverage, but again the subject is not the main focus of the Space.com article is only included at the very ending section out of a total of 5 sections.
• Source 16 is from a small movie review website which does not demonstrate notability of the organisation themselves.
• Source 21 (Source 22 would fall under this as well) by Heavy.com are more articles based more around interviews of the professor of this organisation and a discussion about Star Trek but WP:RS says that Heavy.com is not great of a source and should not be relied upon; 'There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied :upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.'

Whether these can be used can be debated, Source 22 is actually better in this because at-least it discusses the Tear in the Sky movie, but again is more of a discussion around that then a discussion around the organisation

• Source 23 is a unrelated 1974 article about UFO spotting's which has nothing to do with this group at all.
• Source 24 is from the History Channel which is unreliable. 'Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories.'
• Also the 'Catalina Island Expedition - A Tear in the Sky' section reads kind of like an ad?

Overall in my opinion the group is not really notable enough for a Wikipedia article (but by all means does not mean that the subject is irrelevant in the UFO scene of-course) Tweedle (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The Catalina Island section does not "read like an ad". It is describing a key event in UAPx's history which is entirely pertinent to the organization's notability.

Source 23 was cited as evidence to support the claim that the Skinwalker Ranch area is widely regarded as a "hotspot for UAP sightings". This is directly relevant to UAPx's recent expedition to the ranch and thus the mention in my article.

Regarding additional sources, here are two more (which I'm currently unable to add, due to the article's locked status):

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost Cosmoid (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

'The Catalina Island section does not "read like an ad"' - I dont want to obsess too much on this point, I think it could be re-written mainly but to stress this is not an assumption of bad faith of you by the way.

'Source 23 was cited as evidence to support the claim that the Skinwalker Ranch area' - Fair point, mistake on my behalf as I was skimming through the sources, however we would most likely have to remove said section due to the main point and source being the History Channel citation to which the History Channel itself is considered to be unreliable.

Regarding the two additional sources attached to this I will just copy and paste what I wrote above which you responded to;

I would just comment on Vice as I can't comment on PopularMechanics.com for the moment, It is considered to on WP:RS to have 'no consensus on the reliability' of the publication, while this doesn't immediately rule out it does not lead very well as one of your main sources for establishing notability (but is better then anything currently anyway). Tweedle (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd certainly re-write that section to remove any language that might be considered promotional in any way. No problem at all. Cosmoid (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The rest of the sources are problematic as discussed, removing the promotional items might help, but we need better sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect I was hoping for something in this Cnet article [1], the group is only mentioned in the last few lines of the article. Rest of the Gnews pages are press release type articles or sketchy websites. I don't think this group has notability, yet. I would reconsider a redirect to the "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_Aerial_Phenomena_Task_Force", which is basically what this group is studying, the US Navy videos. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think redirect a non-notable group is a good idea just based on it's mere existence. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  UAPx is *not* studying the US Navy videos. The organisation is conducting its own research expeditions with a view to obtaining primary data for analysis by the team of analysts and professional physicists. Case in point, the Catalina Island expedition, which was filmed by the independent production company for the Tear in the Sky movie that I referenced. Preliminary analysis of the data was presented at the recent SCU AAPC conference (also referenced) and the science team is currently writing several papers for submission to peer reviewed journals towards the end of this year.

  In reference to the "notability" requirements - please see these two links, which specifically pertain to UAPx:

  https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group

  https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost

  I would add these to my article, however I am currently unable to edit as it is locked. Cosmoid (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'd also add that a redirect to the UAPTF would be wholly inappropriate. UAPx is a nonprofit organisation and is not affiliated with any US government agency. Cosmoid (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also: https://sciencetechtoday.com/news/anomalous-atmospheric-event-recorded-by-uapx-while-on-expedition-to-catalina-island/0378438 Cosmoid (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force -was- a tax-dollar funded US Government Program which is now defunct and those responsibilities have been taken over by another USG department called the irborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2853121/dod-announces-the-establishment-of-the-airborne-object-identification-and-manag/ Both of those are official US Government programs. UAPx is, as has been clearly stated here, on their site, and in nearly every reference, a civilian organization which does not work with or for the US Government. Redirecting the UAPx page to the UAPTF should not occur. 174.68.143.246 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

From what I saw, they were studying what was in the tic tac video. I'd just delete it at this point, notability has not been established and it appears at best a fringe group, at worst, something filmed for television (not quite as bad as the Ancient Aliens fellows which is another reason why we can't accept History TV as a source imho)). Submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal doesn't help, it needs to be accepted and published (heck, I can submit a paper to them, just as anyone could). Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

For a group established 3 yrs ago, they have 1300 something followers on Discord and 3000 or so on Twitter, or the other way around. I'd expect a much larger following if it was in the least bit notable. Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes, but I follow train bloggers on youtube that have more followers than this group does. It's mathematicians/scientists gathering data at the end of the day, which is what they do. Almost appears routine at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

So following my providing the additional links that clearly support "notability", you're now trying to shift the ground by trying to define that on the basis of how many social media followers the group has? Really?! You contradict yourself by stating "Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes"; so then why bring it up if it is not legitimate grounds to speak to "notability"? Is it because I have gone out of my way to provide references that meet what has been asked, so you're now looking to create a perception to sway opinion that is not, in actual fact, based on Wikipedia's own stated requirements? Cosmoid (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it's showing how non-notable it is. I'm colouring the discussing, you can read it however you please. I still don't see notability. If you don't like my two cents, well, it's only two cents. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No, your social media comment clearly was not "showing how non-notable it is", being that - as you have already conceded - "Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes". Cosmoid (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

exactly, and the group is even less notable in the public eye, which shows how it's not terribly notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

A subject's social media presence is entirely irrelevant to the discussion - as you have already conceded. So, the statement it "shows how it's not terribly notable either" is fallacious & adds nothing of substance to the discussion; there can be no impact on "notability" from a domain that lies outwith the bounds of how "notability" is defined. Cosmoid (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that you saw "they were studying what was in the tic tac video" - presumably as pertaining to the US Navy videos of 2004 as were released by the Pentagon and referenced by the UAPTF - I’d suggest you look again.

Being generous, I'll assume you are referring to the work of Dr. Knuth and Dr. Szydagis regarding presentations on the "Flight Characteristics & Physics of UAP", where the US Navy data was analysed. Note, that although Dr. Knuth and Dr. Szydagis are members of UAPx, this work was done independently of the organisation and was published in academic literature in October 2019. UAPx was not even formed until August 2019. Dr Knuth's work in this regard has developed over time with input from members of UAPx such as David Mason (who is no longer with the organisation). However, UAPx as an organisation has never undertaken analysis of the US Navy videos. Cosmoid (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Currently the sources which are at least 'decent' enough to establish some sort of notability are as follows for this page:

Indepth discussion;

PopularMechanics.com article

Partial coverage;

Space.com article

LiveScience.com article

Personally I am sticking to my belief of either my initial vote of Delete or at best a Draftifying the article so it can be re-written, the subject seems to have *some* notability in the UFO scene and I sympathise that it is probably hard for the creator of this page to find articles which meet Wikipedia's strict tendency, especially for on a group which is dedicated to studying UFO's, but for the moment I don't think it reaches Wikipedia levels of notability. Tweedle (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The "ufo community" is a small group across the globe. Granted there are larger groups that like and discuss trains - mostly because trains don't get stigmatized. Comparing the social media followings of a ufo group to that of a train group is a non sequitur simply due to the disparity in the overall population's association with those two topics. One must take this into consideration and concede that UAPx has a tremendous following of people from all over the globe in their niche. The fact that the streaming channel, Tubi, just released a new documentary featuring both Jeremy McGowan and Gary Voorhis of UAPx and spent a considerable amount of time discussing UAPx directly in the film speaks volumes. Tubi reaches into a new and different demographic and brings this discussion to more to the forefront than before. Additionally, the previous comments regarding the assumption that UAPx is only studying Navy incidents is patently incorrect. UAPx, even on their own website states they do not study or analyze any data they themselves do not capture. Hence they are developing new scientific equipment, processes, procedures, and acquiring the requisite talent to do so - and have done so and are continuing to do so. UAPx is in partnership with the State University of New York UAlbany (SUNY) as well where they have presented to the physics department and they are noted and mentioned by the Harvard-back "Galileo Project" with many members of UAPx also serving as advisors to the Galileo Project. 174.68.143.246 (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This boils down to a bunch of science guys that measure stuff in the sky, that most people don't see/consider to be real. Yes they've published stuff, they're taking measurements. I don't see them as being any different than other researchers in the field of study, it's almost routine at this point what they're doing. I suppose we could draftify it, but I don't think anything notable will pop up for a while; they may just have to toil away in silence until something big "hits", then we can establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel I have established that UAPx is absolutely notable enough within its knowledge domain to warrant inclusion. The organization is at the forefront of the scientific investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena - a field of investigation which is gaining ever greater public awareness owing to the ongoing US Government Congressional hearings into the UAP question.

Whilst the subject of my article does not command the same broad public awareness of the latest Hollywood blockbuster, the organization is nevertheless notable in terms of the domain in which it operates and the contribution it is making to this field of study - a field which is of intense interest to the US military and, recently, politicians. I would submit that notability for an encyclopaedia should be judged on the basis of the contribution an entity is making to its domain, rather than a public popularity contest. Surely part of the raison d'être of Wikipedia is to educate readers about subject matter that they may not readily find reported in their newspapers week after week.

I feel I have provided references to good secondary sources to establish that UAPx is everything I am claiming them to be. Their position within a domain where the potential global impact of discoveries is unmatched by general public awareness of the process of discovery, merits this organization highly notable, in my opinion. Hence, my spending the time and effort to author the article. Cosmoid (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

no offense but this is blatantly, an AD. i am not sure what the organization appearing in an obscure documentary recently has to do with the notability of the article Fafrotsky (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not "blatantly an AD". You can say that until you're blue in the face - doesn't make it true. You're clearly being unreasonable - indeed you've already been told the article did not merit deletion for "blatant advertising or promotion". You're starting to sound like a broken record.

The link to the documentary was yet another example of UAPx's notability - even though it may not suffice in and of itself, owing to the documentary not being entirely about the organization, such as Wikipedia seems to require. Cosmoid (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

and it's still not a reliable, notable source. It's a documentary on an obscure app. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The link to the documentary on Tubi that features Jeremy McGowan and Gary Voorhis, to which the previous commenter referred, is: https://tubitv.com/movies/675565/aliens-abductions-and-ufos-roswell-at-75

Again, I would have added this as a reference on my article, but am unable to edit. Cosmoid (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.cnet.com/science/the-upcoming-pentagon-ufo-report-isnt-the-place-to-look-for-the-truth/ while this also only briefly mentions UAPx, CNET has published the article at the link in this message that does reference UAPx 174.68.143.246 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Still not notable, as I explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

https://sciencetechtoday.com/news/anomalous-atmospheric-event-recorded-by-uapx-while-on-expedition-to-catalina-island/0378438 107.115.41.1 (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment A thought, would it make sense to put a brief mention of the group here [2], under the Research part? We have a brief mention there of the Mufon group, basically the same idea as these fellows. Not enough for a stand-alone article, but a brief mention there. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  UAPx is nothing like MUFON. That you'd suggest they are demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of what the organisation actually does. Once again - and for the avoidance of any doubt - unlike groups like MUFON, UAPx does NOT investigate UAP/UFO sighting reports from the general public. UAPx conducts its own field research to detect, measure and record UAP activity. The collected data is then subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, and papers authored for submission to the academic literature. Cosmoid (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  The mission, duty, and purpose UAP Expeditions Organization (UAPx) is to identify, classify, understand, and provide a public repository of knowledge on Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. UAPx, with preliminary data analysis, supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved, they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, government or industry developmental program, foreign adversary system, and classifications which will require intense scientific study to explain appropriately. The primary purpose of UAPx is to research the UAP phenomena as defined by the United States Government while providing direct data access from data analytics to the general public. In addition, their goal is to inspire and educate citizen scientists to participate in the national identification process of aerial phenomena. UAPx designs, tests, implements, and utilizes specialized equipment which fills the gaps in sensor technology as identified by the United States Government. Functioning as a civilian analog to the U.S. Government’s UAPTF, UAPx seeks to provide research, education, inspiration, and technological developments to study unidentified aerial phenomena. The UAPx Mobile Response Team creates a detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected during expeditions which include, but is not limited to that of data collected by: Geospatial Intelligence, Signals Intelligence, Human Intelligence, Measurements and Signals Intelligence107.115.41.1 (talk) 107.115.41.1 (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Non-notable group of scientists studying something that may or may not be there. Would be better if we waited until something is published by the group and they get discussed in reliable sources. Unlike Mufon which has somewhat more notable sources, this group hasn't been covered by any. We can revisit when they are. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  You say: "Unlike Mufon which has somewhat more notable sources, this group hasn't been covered by any..."

  Once again, you're talking absolute nonsense. Your claim that UAPx has not been covered by any "notable" sources is simply untrue - as has already been demonstrated by the references provided above.

  The question here is not whether there are any reliable sources to demonstrate notability; it's whether there are enough sources. Speaking to that, I refer you once again to my comments above, namely: "I feel I have established that UAPx is absolutely notable enough within its knowledge domain to warrant inclusion ... Whilst the subject of my article does not command the same broad public awareness of the latest Hollywood blockbuster, the organization is nevertheless notable in terms of the domain in which it operates and the contribution it is making to this field of study - a field which is of intense interest to the US military and, recently, politicians ... I feel I have provided references to good secondary sources to establish that UAPx is everything I am claiming them to be. Their position within a domain where the potential global impact of discoveries is unmatched by general public awareness of the process of discovery, merits this organization highly notable, in my opinion ...". Cosmoid (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  When CNET publishes an article with the title "The Upcoming Pentagon UFO Report Isn't The Place To Look For The Truth" and states "A new nonprofit dubbed UAPx is taking a scientific approach, using technology like satellites and artificial intelligence to monitor the area off the California coast where UAP have been sighted in the past." - that signifies a tremendous affect of the UAPx organization and puts it on parity for actual information affecting the world with the entire military-industrial-political complex of the Pentagon - I'd say that UAPx is quite notable in terms of the per-capita of the population who is interested in this topic. 174.68.143.246 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not it signifies nothing because it isn't coverage of UAPX. I'll ntoe that there are more bytes of text here than there is in the article and still 0 sources that support inclusion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps the disparity between what is considered "notable" per Wikipedia standards and what is notable for an emerging topic should signify the willingness of Wikipedia editors and admins to take a step back and re-evaluate the criteria so that measurements can be made for organizations with small footprints and large undertakings. 174.68.143.246 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is wikipedia. Notability is required in a Wikipedia sense. We aren't a directory of things that exist, if we were, we'd be a search engine. It simply isn't notable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  no·ta·ble

  /ˈnōdəb(ə)l/

  adjective

  worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.

  "the gardens are notable for their collection of magnolias and camellias"

  The key term here is "worthy" - worthy of attention. The idea of UAPx is, by definition, worthy of attention in and of itself. The fact that it hasn't made a tremendous footprint in the news does not detract from the fact that it is a notable company, "worthy of attention." The nature, type, and approach to their research and methodology is "worthy of attention" just the same as an ethereal idea is worthy of attention, and notable, due to the effect it has on those who read it. I contend that UAPx is, in fact, a notable company, worthy of attention, and Wikipedia should take into consideration the idea that the "worth" of an organization is not restricted to writing and output of others, but by the effect it has on a group, community, or subsection of the population. The inspiration which UAPx has given to those who have been denied a full understanding of what is happening in our skies (be it domestic tech or something else) is remarkable in the fact that for the first time in more than 80 years, humanity has an organization dedicated to finding the truth of the matter without reliance on any government. 174.68.143.246 (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOTABLE is the relevant policy you're looking for. We require coverage in independent reliable sources. Not passing mentions. Not an entire fandom/brigading by groups affiliated with subjects to determine notability. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

  A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

  It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and

  It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

  Based on exact wording from Wikipedia, "Article and lists topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. 174.68.143.246 (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Imagine if you put this much effort into finding actual sources that discuss this in depth. We wouldn't need to have this conversation, but they don't exist, so here we are. And as I said, unless anyone here can provide actual sources that would show it meets GNG, your claims that it does are irrelevant. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  What is wrong with these two sources, please, which are specifically about UAPx:

  https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group

  https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost Cosmoid (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well for one, the Vice article isn't written by staff, it's a contributor piece. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Why is that significant? The reference is not being used to support a statement of fact; it is being used to demonstrate notability.

  As Wikipedia's guidelines state, notability is evaluated with reference to the "reliable source guidelines". Regarding the "outside authors", the Reliable Sources guidelines state "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

  Therefore, that would appear to support my submission that the Vice article should be considered a "reliable secondary source" for the purpose of establishing notability. Cosmoid (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are incorrect - contributor submissions are not acceptable and would you please for the love of whatever you believe in stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion?! You have made the same comment with the same sources at least 6 times. It's beyond disruptive. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please show me exactly where the guidelines state, in so many words, that contributor articles to reliable secondary sources are not acceptable to demonstrate notability. I must have missed that and would like to see a reference. Thanks. Cosmoid (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well you can read the discussion surrounding Forbes to start WP:FORBESCON, which discusses at length why contributor pieces in general aren't RS nor notability establishing. But seriously, stop bludgeoning this AFD. You've made it impossible to parse for anyone and made completely redundant illogical arguments. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  KEEP. Reliable links were provided as were requested. "Praxidicae" needs to take their own advice & stop "bludgeoning" the discussion. Claiming the points made were "completely redundant illogical arguments" is blatantly absurd. They were evidently addressing the issues raised and absolutely on point. 90.255.83.43 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete mostly per the source analysis of Tweedledumb2. Current coverage doesn't show this non-profit meeting the relevant notability guidelines (GNG or NONPROFIT). If people UAPx themselves can't find significant coverage, I doubt anyone else will. ~Styyx^Talk? 15:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  In terms of GNG & NONPROFIT, here is significant coverage, from reputable sources, of a non-profit that operates nationally:

  https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group

  https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost Cosmoid (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per Tweedledumb2 —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)