Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazi UFOs

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 keep. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi UFOs

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

This article came up a week ago during a routine sweep through the black project template pages. Its just enough outside the norm that I feel an afd is warranted, so here we are. Proposed grounds for deletion are WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —TomStar81 (Talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and on grounds that the article could be a violation of WP:HOAX. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there does appear to be sufficient references to pass WP:GNG, however I am weary to support keep on this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is decently sourced, so I don't see a WP:OR problem here; if you do, then fix it – the sources are there. This isn't a WP:HOAX because the article is not presenting the Nazi UFO theory as fact. It is a crackpot/fringe theory, of course, but the concept is notable and well-documented. Passes WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Moreover, after carefully reading through WP:FRINGE, I think this article is acceptable under that guideline. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a notable topic. Article makes it clear that it is presenting a rational, balanced view of the topic, not endorsing a fringe theory. Borock (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a recurring (rather than notable) topic, here adequately presented, too short rather than too long. (E.g. it quotes British wartime expert Roy Fedden about unspecified Nazi weapons still under development in 1945 but omits that Fedden probably meant such prototype missiles as the Rheintochter (now in the Imperial War Museum) rather than flying saucers.) Yes, the article documents what has been published, some of it by conspiracy nuts, but does not endorse all as equally true. User:Carlsbad Science 14.02 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep While the article discusses a fringe theory it does so in a balanced manner rather than presenting it as the truth which would be grounds for deletion. I can see no problem with the sources so WP:GNG is met. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well-sourced article about a long-established theory, not written as if the theory is fact. I see no issues with WP:FRINGE or WP:OR. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It is important that when people hear about the Nazi flying saucers from Antarctica that, once they stop rolling on the floor with laughter, they have a place to go where they can find out information about this topic, specifically that the myths (in the sense of nonsensical stories) about these saucers were inspired by the fact that the Third Reich actually DID have an experimental aircraft that WAS saucer shaped. Keraunos (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable topic. Also a well-written and respectable resourceful entry. --Effer^AKS 05:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This article doesnt really make any sense.--173.24.195.48 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't make sense? Are you sure you don't mean the theory doesn't make sense? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic, balanced article, well written and sourced. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep appears notable enough and is fairly decently sourced. At the present, seems fine in regard to WP:FRINGE. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may be something of an esoteric subject, however there are many similar articles on Wikipedia and stories about Nazi UFOs are common enough in science fiction and fringe theories as to make having an article on the subject worthwhile by virtue of notability. IrishPete (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO article clearly identifies teh therory as "fruitcake" & is valuable just for that identification and discussing the reasons why.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:52, 21 December 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.

Very Strong Delete Unless we can get somebody who is actually living on Planet Earth to write this article it should be deleted forthwith. What comnplete H*******TPetebutt (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]