Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiles-Whitted UFO encounter

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. AfD is not for clean-up. Nomination has received no support. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chiles-Whitted UFO encounter[edit]

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

The article consists almost entirely of original research. What little sourcing there is references questionable sources. The subject does not seem to have significant notability, however if any mentions can be found we might end up stubbing this down and merging it into one of the UFO Flap list articles. The only sources given are two UFO encyclopaedias (clearly questionable sources), and a book about UFOs published on a WP:FRINGE website. Unless reliable sources can be found this article also fails notability criteria. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm having trouble spotting the original research. The Chiles-Whitted encounter seems to have a lot written about it. The sources could be improved, but this seems like an obvious keep to me. Bali88 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My claim that this is OR stems from the fact that nothing at all in the article is reliably sourced. I've updated my notice to reflect this. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. I'm not sure I'd define original research in quite that way. Bali88 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor I. Material based on unreliable sources is different to material based on no sources at all (WP:OR). But I get where the nom is coming from. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart's definition of OR is a good working definition, an expedient one. But when it comes down to it, OR, like so many WP rules, is simply ad hominem and violates AGF; there is no way of telling the difference between something created out of thin air and something for which no sources can be found. Far better to ignore the term OR altogether and just say it is unsourced. Anarchangel (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - because the notability of subjects is not based on the sources listed but on the sources available and there are several others. It looks like almost every book that (rightly or wrongly) treats "UFOlogy" as a "science" to be studied includes this incident, especially given the alleged involvement of reliable witnesses (commercial pilots and Air Force personnel). It is included in fairly non-fringe books (some of which actually provide "ordinary" explanations for various sightings) like:

And in more fringe books like:

Scientific UFOlogy: how the application of scientific methodology can analyze, illuminate, and prove the reality of UFOs

I think there's probably enough there to consider this a notable event or claim, even the veracity of the claim is disputed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The trouble with the topic of UFO's is that we have a different standard when it comes to sources. For example, I wrote an article about African American names. For sources, I read books and articles about the study of names and the study of African American history written by experts in those fields because that's where you learn about this topic. That's how you find sources for any topic: you look at books on that topic. When it comes to UFO's, if the source is a book about ufo's people automatically say "Well, it's an unreliable source because it's about UFO's". It sort of sets up a nearly impossible situation because the second a source covers the topic people say "Well, that's unreliable because it covers fringy things". So to say that a topic isn't notable because it's only covered in books about UFO's...by that logic no source could ever possibly count because the second a source covers it, we exclude it. Does that make sense? To me, the notability of this topic is demonstrated by the fact that it's mentioned over and over and over in these books about UFO sightings. It's clearly a topic of interest to a lot of people. To me that proves notability. In terms of reliable sources: I think as much as is written about it, we can surely find some reliable sources saying "seriously guys, this UFO sighting is bogus!" if we keep looking. Bali88 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the first two sources I listed above are exactly that. Coverage from "sceptics" who claim the sightings are bogus but nonetheless take the time to refute this particular sighting because it is high profile. When even the sceptics acknowledge it's a notable UFO sighting (or "sighting"), I think we probably have enough. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bali88. The problem with using fringe sources and sources that exploit the topic with flashy claims and sensational conjecture is that they aren't objective. If you wrote an article based on such sources it would say evidence of UFOs is being hidden by a government conspiracy and ancient aliens built the pyramids. Like it or nor, UFOs are a fringe topic and WP:FRIND applies. - LuckyLouie (talk)

Agreed. And I totally get that. I'm not really arguing that we need to use all those books as our sources. But I think we also need to be careful not to outright reject those mentions when discussing the notability of a topic. A lot of people are a little quick on the draw to discount these sources as relevant (which, frankly, seems like an IDONTLIKEIT vote to me). The fact that book after book, however unreliable it may be, is mentioning the topic proves that it's a notable topic. Because often that's the reasoning people use in these discussions--that it isn't getting the right kind of mentions so it's not notable. We can present a fringe topic without giving credibility to what unreliable people are saying. If these sources are saying that the government is covering stuff up and a government official says "these allegations are patently false", we can present it in that way and that fits well within wikipedia guidelines. Bali88 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very often no objective commentary exists regarding UFO claims that are highly popular among fringe and conspiracy sources; one can typically find dozens of websites and books breathlessly repeating and often embroidering stories and rumors as if they were factual. I would avoid characterizing editors who seem to be too quick on the draw as somehow biased against a certain topic when they are actually biased against having the encyclopedia give undue credibility to nonsense that purports to be real. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And suppose that "nonsense" is also discussed in books by UFO debunkers who disdain the subject as much as some Wiki editors? Does that not undermine your claim that only "fringe" sources are discussing it, and thus the details involved can't be trusted? What credentials qualify a source as trustworthy in the UFO field? I'm perfectly aware of Wiki requirements, but what about scientists who've written about UFOs, like J. Allen Hynek or James McDonald? Are they also "unduly credible"? What about debunkers? I've discussed this issue below, but I know from looking at articles that some editors delete material from UFO articles while having no clue about the incident or the sources - they just assume that if it has "UFO" in its name, then its automatically an unreliable source and can be deleted. 184.3.105.42 (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slenderman isn't real either, but it's relevant culturally and we have a wikipedia article on that without purporting that it actually exists. The fact that a certain UFO sighting is popular among fringe and conspiracy sources proves that it has cultural relevance. I realize there are people who are against having anything but serious topics, but imo cultural topics are just as important. Bali88 (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources claiming eyewitness sightings of Slenderman as far as I know. And I've yet to come across an editor who wants to delete articles about offbeat fictional subjects that are explained by by reliable objective sources as being offbeat and fictional. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are UFO debunkers such as Dr. Donald Menzel and Philip Klass also considered "fringe" sources? I'd be interested to know, because I have seen numerous UFO articles on Wikipedia in which skeptical editors delete large sections of material from the article because they're sourced only to "fringe, unreliable" sources, when in fact these same incidents are also mentioned in books by UFO debunkers like Klass and Curtis Peebles. If prominent UFO debunkers - including astronomers like Menzel and aviation historians like Peebles - also mention these incidents (and often feature the same details that are included in supposedly "fringe" sources), then does that not undermine your argument that the information can't be trusted because only "fringe" sources use them? To be specific, are debunkers considered fringe sources, no matter their credentials? Moreover, are "ufologists" that have scientific credentials, such as Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Dr. James McDonald, and Dr. Bruce Maccabee, to be placed into the same "fringe" category as people like Art Bell? Where's the line? 184.3.105.42 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know as much about the topic as others do, so I'll defer to others who are more "in the know" to determine what people and sources are reliable, but I suspect that what I mentioned above is what is going on: people are seeing a book about UFO's and immediately deciding it's unreliable because it's about UFO's without doing any investigation. Bali88 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well-taken, there are many others who think they are "in the know", but actually know almost nothing about the specific incidents these articles discuss or the quality of the sources that are cited to them. Yet these editors have no problems with deleting material as "fringe" or "unreliable" because, as you wrote, they simply assume if it has "UFO" in its title its automatically unreliable. To cite just one example, on the Project Sign talk page there were two editors who were trying to delete sources involving Edward J. Ruppelt, an engineer and Air Force officer who served as the supervisor of Project Blue Book, and Michael D. Swords, a retired professor of natural sciences at Western Michigan University. It's obvious that neither of the editors had any idea of who Ruppelt or Swords were, but they were going to delete them as sources because they just knew they must be fringe and unreliable because they had written about UFOs, or were quoted as saying something the editors didn't agree with. One editor even said they couldn't find any information on Swords, even though there is an entire Wiki article about him! Seriously, how hard could it have been to look that up? I'm no believer in UFOs myself - I think nearly all "unsolved" sightings are explainable as normal phenomena or military secret projects (especially UFO incidents from the 1940s-1980s Cold War period) - but it seems to me that editors should at least do some research into a UFO incident before editing willy-nilly. And, for the record, I'm well aware that many, many "believers" are guilty of the same, as I've seen numerous instances of citing absurd, highly-dubious "sources" into UFO articles as well. My point is that not all UFO sources are the same, yet both "believer" and "skeptical" Wiki editors make edits as if they were, based more on personal bias and ignorance of the topic rather than any Wiki guidelines. Just my two cents. 184.3.105.42 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge of these individuals would be of use to a number of UFO related articles, and if you could post it on the talk pages, that would be really helpful! I know there was quite a bit of this blanket rejection at the AFD discussion for UFO sightings in outer space on the basis that if a source covered UFO sightings, that was solid evidence that they were unreliable. Bali88 (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is typical of many UFO-related articles on Wikipedia in several different areas. It is poorly-written and poorly-organized, the citation formatting is poor, and it is sourced largely to a single writer. On the other hand, I have often been amused by UFO skeptics who want to delete such articles rather than fix the problems. They frequently claim that such articles are only cited to "fringe, unreliable" sources, but often have no clue that their claims of fringe sources are contradicted by prominent UFO debunkers (such as Philip Klass), who discuss in their books the very UFO incidents these editors wish to delete because only "fringe UFO believers" write about them. This is because they often haven't studied or read about the incidents the articles discuss, and thus simply dismiss them out of hand as "not notable" enough to be a Wikipedia article. In short, this article definitely needs some work and more sourcing (UFO skeptics such as Curtis Peebles and Donald Menzel have written about the Chiles-Whitted incident in their UFO books, for example), but I do think it's worth keeping as a Wiki article. And Jerome Clark is, I think, a reliable source, as is Edward J. Ruppelt, who discusses this incident in his book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. The article does need some work, but I'm not sure that simply deleting it is the way to go. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd happily withdraw the nomination if there was at least one editor who was willing to clean up this mess! I've had a look through some of the sources mentioned on this page and I'm not yet convinced that any would pass our notability guidelines (even the Skeptical sources), which tend to be blogs and small mentions. I get the impression that this just isn't a particulary important topic, even within the Fringe subject of ufology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may regret saying this, but I will try to "fix" the article if that meets with your approval. I own copies of the books of Curtis Peebles, Donald Menzel, and Philip Klass - all prominent UFO debunkers - as well as some UFO books by what I consider to be more "reliable" sources, such as Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Jerome Clark. I am currently on vacation, so it will be next week before I can try some edits. I will contact you on your talk page so you can check my edits and see if they are OK. If not, please feel free to let me know and I'll do my best to fix them. I don't think the Chiles-Whitted case is a "major" UFO incident, but it did influence Project Sign and, according to Air Force officer and future Project Blue Book supervisor Edward J. Ruppelt, was considered at the time to be one of three "classic" cases that convinced Project Sign that UFOs were "real". My own take, after much reading, is that Chiles and Whitted probably saw a meteor, most likely a bolide. Again, it will be sometime next week before I will have the time to do this. I just hate to see an article deleted because no one wants to fix the problems. 184.3.105.42 (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing multiple independent reliable sources that need to be added to the article. They are found here including this book. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:10, 4 June 2014 (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.