Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodiak Island UFO sighting: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) D++, sorting as Science (UFOlogy) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''delete''' not notable. [[User:Voiceofreason01|Voiceofreason01]] ([[User talk:Voiceofreason01|talk]]) 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
*'''delete''' not notable. [[User:Voiceofreason01|Voiceofreason01]] ([[User talk:Voiceofreason01|talk]]) 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. I agree, there isn't enough here to support an article. If additional sources became available, it would be a different story - but there have been 2 years during which something could have been found, and nothing. My own (limited) search reveals nothing at all. So, delete. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 20:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. I agree, there isn't enough here to support an article. If additional sources became available, it would be a different story - but there have been 2 years during which something could have been found, and nothing. My own (limited) search reveals nothing at all. So, delete. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 20:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - lacking any followup, there's no way that it can be determined whether this is truly notable or not. No coverage for two years suggests it's probably a minor event. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 21:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:42, 18 December 2009
- Kodiak Island UFO sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Here are the facts: In September 2007 something crashed somewhere in the vicinity of Kodiak Island. The local paper devoted a few paragraphs to it. A Wikipedia article based on that report and subsequent postings at UFO websites was created. The article has languished in this state for nearly two years, with only one reliable source, and that just a single column story in a local paper. It's worth noting that nearby news organs in Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula did not pick up this story. Seems to fail the notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- delete not notable. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree, there isn't enough here to support an article. If additional sources became available, it would be a different story - but there have been 2 years during which something could have been found, and nothing. My own (limited) search reveals nothing at all. So, delete. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - lacking any followup, there's no way that it can be determined whether this is truly notable or not. No coverage for two years suggests it's probably a minor event. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)