Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien visitation

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. Consensus is that this content should go. Editors can now decide whether to redirect this to any of the various proposed targets. Sandstein 18:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alien visitation

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

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

This article is an originally researched violation of WP:FRINGE. It is also a WP:POVFORK of Ancient astronauts and panspermia. jps (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In rather two minds, seems there is some sourcing, and it is a thing. But I also cannot help but think there must be a better article on wiki about this. If there is not there should be, so NO, not delete so much as re-work.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Related articles are Contactee, Alien abduction and Ancient astronauts but they are subtopics. Peter James (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Close encounter. jps (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article gives sources for a popular fringe topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, do you think von Däniken in anyway serves as a reliable source for this topic? jps (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he is at all reliable, but he is notable for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You said the article gives sources. The article seems to rely mostly on von Däniken. Perhaps you'd like to clarify which sources you think the article is providing that are so useful we should keep the article? jps (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUBIFY to an index of other articles covering the subject. This is a WP:TNT case due to its POV, poor sourcing (von Däniken is a proven fraudster and heavily criticised for the factual errors in his books) and misuse of sources (Olien's book, for instance, does not support the Ancient Astronaut theory). SpinningSpark 16:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unambiguous WP:POVFORK of Ancient astronauts. -LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Looks like it has some citations and it is slightly different form the Ancient astronauts page or panspermia. I am leaning to redirect to Contactee or Alien abduction since they seem to cover this. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramos1990 and LuckyLouie: Arguably, all three articles you name come under this topic. That's why I said stubify to an index article. SpinningSpark 21:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - There's not enough distinct material here for a separate article, although I'm unsure if it should point to contactee or to ancient astronaut if kept as a redirect. —Paleo Neonate – 07:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1. Because the talk page's top header template is indicating the article's intention to be in a science fiction context, yet the article itself is attempting to present it only as factual, real world. Possibly in that respect WP:DONTHOAX applies. I acknowledge that below the sci-fi header on the talk page is a paranormal one. 2. The term "alien visitation" is too general and the subject is already covered under Ancient astronauts, Close encounter, Alien abduction, and List of reported UFO sightings. 5Q5 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Close encounter, which has a fuller explanation.--Auric talk 18:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I almost said that, but actually looking at Close encounter is seems to be an article about Hynek's scale of close encounters which defines the terminology, but not about alien encounters as a general topic. I'm a little surprised there isn't an article describing supposed alien encounters. I guess that just got divided up into individual theories and crazy claims (abduction, ancient astronauts, etc) without leaving any content for an umbrella article. ApLundell (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know how such an "umbrella article" would be written. There are loads of legitimate discussions of what "alien" visitation might look like from perspectives as diverse as religions to science fiction to SETI to Stephen Hawking's famous concern that we were inviting our impending doom by revealing our presence to "them". This would be largely original research or, at best, a list of ideas relating to the subject because there isn't a serious study of alien visitation as a topic handled by any particular group. jps (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is untrue that there is no scholarly discussion of "alien visitation". For a start there is "Alien visitation, extra-terrestrial life, and paranormal beliefs" from Journal of Scientific Exploration. Numerous other papers in scientific journals define and use the term; Perceptual and Motor Skills, Psychological Inquiry, Cognitive Psychology, Acta Astronautica, Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, Journal of Social Psychology. SpinningSpark 16:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term is one thing; in depth exploration is quite another. Anything published by the Journal of Scientific Exploration can be safely ignored. jps (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2019 (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.