Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyame UFO 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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coyame UFO incident

Original version has "alleged" or "believed" in every sentence: current version reports alleged events as facts. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources given are a book written by Noe Torres, who is also the prime contributor for the article, and a couple of self-published sources. I tried to find news sources related to the incident, and only found an interview with Mr. Torres. It seems like this article is basically a way for him to expand on and promote his book, which isn't appropriate. -- Atama ^chat 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Doesn't seem to be anything like multiple independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage in a way that argues for enough notability to even be mentioned in other articles, let alone have an article to itself. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There was an entire show on the alleged event on a major cable channel. There have been books written on it. Here's one of the articles with substantial coverage in a reliable independent source [1]. The article certainly needs a lot of work, but the topic is clearly a notable UFO related subject that should be fixed up and kept. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, it sounds like the book may be notable. Maybe we should rename this to be about the book, rather than about the alleged incident, and trim the description way down?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a couple of books. And what about the A&E show about the "incident"? I can't see how anyone would object to someone going in with hedge clippers and gutting it. But there is still enough for a nice little article or a stub on this bit of lore (or coverup, if you're into that kind of thing). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can clean it up so it's more than a stub, but makes it clear what can and can't be verified I'll happily withdraw. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be about the book, because it practically is the book... I mean, this article was written by the same person who wrote the book. Sorry if that sounds a tad bitter, but I'm disturbed when an author decides to use Wikipedia as a place to publicize his books. -- Atama ^chat 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards merge to List of UFO sightings because there are sources (hence we should WP:PRESERVE the content) but it's a bit hard to establish notability. I think CoM's source, above, is more talking about the book and the authors rather than the alleged incident.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have the show and the book redirect to this article than vice versa. Here's a link to the program on this encounter. [2]. There's also this which I can't read [3] but may count for something. The story is notable as UFO legend/ myth/ documented proof of the vast cover-up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DreamGuy Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP per ChildOfMidnight. Just because it may not have actually happened doesn't mean it's not notable. Most of the arguments against it right now are arguments for improvement, not deletion. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep deleting this would be similar to deleting articles on the Philadelphia Experiment. It might have been a hoax/misidentification/mass hallucination, but the subject has been covered in independent sources, therefore meets WP:NOTE, and WP:V, which are the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Needs additional sourcing, but not nearly worthy of delete. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2009 (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.