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. Nobody has explicitly cited this in this prolonged debate, but it seems clear that WP:TNT applies here. Even a good number of the keep comments advocate for basically starting over, plus there were clearly issues with bludgeoning the discussion, canvassing, and some other issues. This may be a feasible topic for a page, I can't say I see a strong consensus on that matter, but it seems clear we shouldn't have this version of it at all. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of UFOs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article was created by one editor to document, among other things, "institutional countermeasures against the UFO disclosure process". Originally titled Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure, it was moved by a concerned editor to Timeline of UFOs, as a stopgap measure pending further evaluation. Since then, there has been some discussion on the article Talk page from which it seems clear the article creator doesn't understand WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SELCRIT, or why WP:PRIMARY sources (including links and citations to conspiracy-themed material like [1] and [2]) can't be assembled to WP:SYNTHesize an article in order to highlight a particular theme. There has been some peripheral discussion regarding the usefulness of a rewrite to create a generic "UFO Timeline" article, however I don't see any upside, since it would duplicate content already contained in List of reported UFO sightings, UFO conspiracy theories, Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title has been changed once again. Now article title is Timeline of UFOlogy. However the same problems outlined above remain - and a giant WP:LINKFARM has been added. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't acknowledge that the conspiracy-themed materials as you referred to before have been removed. Clearly your arguments are mostly targeting pre-2000s content. They have been "sanitized" to some extent and more non-primary references are added. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is still plenty of conspiracy-themed stuff in the article before and after the 2000s: James Fox's movie, Ross Coulthart's book, Robert Hastings (ufologist) book, etc. None of these things are cited as significant or important by any independent histories of UFOlogy or authoritative sources. The timeline resembles more an RSS feed or content aggregator or web scraper search result than an encylopedic article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references for these are added in. Now most entries have at least one reference. I'd say if any remaining entries don't pass mustard, please delete. I will see if you still disagree on this. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is willing to do it, I very much do see the upside in keeping it as a generic UFO timeline article. It wouldn't be purely duplicative if it incorporated material from several other pages in a different format. Otherwise, no opinion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The title is irredeemably vague. Would the movie Close Encounters be on the timeline? If not, by what criteria would it be excluded? It's a really good movie about UFOs. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would honestly say that that should be included as it had an extremely large impact on the public perception of UFOs and therefore later reports of them, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have restricted the title to ufology per suggestion of @Praemonitus The movie is well-known for sure, there's even a book about it (https://academic.oup.com/liverpool-scholarship-online/book/37761), but it would probably not fit into the ufology timeline, because it's fictional and is not intended as research. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I suggest a rename to timeline of ufology as that title seems more appropriate to the subject matter (ufology). Praemonitus (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Praemonitus, that title sounds good. I have changed the title, hopefully I can convince you at least. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article now has a clearer scope after all the sanitization and redaction. It has views from multiple sides, including those who believe UFOs exist or not exist. It's something this platform needs. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator. This article lacks any coherent inclusion criteria and most of the sourcing is poor, relying far too heavily upon primary and/or pro-fringe sources. The result is an article that, apparently, is one editor's attempt to create a WP:POVFORK for pro-fringe, and often non-notable, UFO material. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What would be considered pro-fringe in this case? Debrief vs New York Times? I think asking for every entry to credit a source for a topic deeply entrenched in controversy before the 2010s as ufology is not fair. How many of the UFO conspiracy theories are considered not pro-fringe? VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think asking for every entry to credit a source [...] is not fair. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Perhaps it would be best for all of us to review the WP policy WP:NOT (in particular the subsection WP:LINKFARM) and the WP content guideline WP:FRINGE (in particular the subsections WP:FRIND and WP:PARITY). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:LINKFARM is only a stylistic issue and does not justify deletion. There is not a clear designation of how many links to include for each topic. It's possible to turn some links into references. Moreover, for a timeline article that include content over 100 years, we would expect more links and references than an average article. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator and above suggestion. Note that doing this during the AfD is likely to cause more problems than it solves. Problems with move/scope change should be resolved/repaired, and THEN the list should be brought back here for discussion if problems remain. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the article was renamed to "Timeline of Ufology" and I've removed several non-ufology items to reflect that. I still don't think the scope is clearly defined. What criteria determines if a book goes into the list? Would 1950s books by Donald Keyhoe, Frank Scully, or George Adamski be included? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the edits. The book entries should be reconsidered for sure. Only those that introduced key concepts or conclusions (like Edward Ruppelt, Allen Hynek, and Jacques Vallee), first of its kind (like Charles Fort). This is quite straightforward in the STEM fields I'm familiar with editing, but for ufology there are quite a lot of controversies. I think the importance of books will become less and less from the 2020s on because more peer-reviewed research in the field are getting published, so they could become more justified sources of knowledge. Really, I think the sentiment from other editors have to do with the inclusion or disregard of certain books or accounts in the "old days" of ufology (e.g. pre-2000s).

VaudevillianScientist (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more peer-reviewed research in the field are getting published, so they could become more justified sources of knowledge What peer reviewed research about UFOs is getting published? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you are not aware. Just two examples are listed below for brevity. There are more preprints on the internet under peer reviews. These are the astronomical / astrophysical aspects.

https://doi.org/10.1142%2FS2251171723400068

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49527-x

The field of psychology investigating alien abduction/encounters have peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals from the 1990s already. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the psychological aspect of UFO experiences should be counted as ufology. So I'd retain Jung's book because it's the first study on that. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's a valid rationale and will leave it in, but it's an example of the issue I mentioned earlier. The secondary sources say he wrote "about UFOs" not as a ufologist. I still find the scope unclear. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have clarified the scope in the beginning of the article now. It comes after all the discussions happened here. Yeah, I suspect back when Jung wrote it there was not yet a concept of ufology/ufologist.VaudevillianScientist (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as "Timeline of Ufology," but there has to be an agreed-upon inclusion criteria, especially for anything from the 2000s onward. In the digital age it very easy to get things published. You can't have every modern book, TV and radio show, documentary, podcast, social media cast (eg, Spaces on X), etc. Wikipedia has lots of timelines: List of timelines, Category:Science_timelines, Category:Historical_timelines. Ufology is recognized by most governments to be an important topic. 5Q5|^✉ 13:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ufology is recognized by most governments to be an important topic. This is categorically false. jps (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ufology is recognized by most governments to be an important topic Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See https://ask.un.org/faq/22686. On Dec 13, 1977, the General Assembly of the United Nations with all members present (a "plenary meeting") voted in the majority to consider a request by Granada to establish a UN agency to study UFOs. The following year on Dec 18, 1978 in another plenary meeting, the UN General Assembly voted in the majority in favor of letting interested governments create such an agency within their own governments and report results to the UN. In the first 1977 decision, all member nations were instructed to take the proposal back to their governments to discuss. This made it an important topic, which does not equate to belief or support. 5Q5|^✉ 11:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a vote made at the UN General Assembly almost 50 years ago counts as evidence of what governments today recognize to be important topics. In this case, especially, Granada requested that the UN create an agency and the decision amounts to "hey, if you're interested in creating an agency, you go ahead and create one, okay chap? Let me know if you find anything, buddy. Good luck." So even if had taken place yesterday, wouldn't count as evidence. VdSV9•♫ 13:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UFOs/UAPs are now recognized as an aviation safety issue by at least US, Canada, the EU, Israel, and more recently Japan. You should be following the news, not just assume that the status quo is the same as 10-20 years ago..

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-000318_EN.html VaudevillianScientist (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link you have offered is a single "Question for written answer to the Commission" by one politician named Francisco Guerreiro. It is not evidence that EU Space Law has changed in any way, or that "UFOs/UAPs are now recognized as an aviation safety issue" in the countries you suggest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's this one https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2024-0194_EN.html

This is now a motion and still needs probably a year if not more to become legislation. The fact that this is formally discussed in the EU parliament in a formal conference is an indication people are taking it seriously. It only happened in Feb-March 2024. The first link just tells you that the event took place.

For Canada, this is the governmental project https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/science/en/office-chief-science-advisor/sky-canada-project VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...still needs probably a year if not more to become legislation. The fact that this is formally discussed in the EU parliament in a formal conference is an indication people are taking it seriously. Dozens and dozens of parliamentary motions are put forth each year, and only a fraction are notable. Maybe you are convinced that this motion will probably result in legislation and the mere fact that someone mentioned it is an indication people are taking it seriously...however Wikipedia needs a WP:RS that we can attribute for this analysis and opinion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The typical time for a motion to be formally approved/rejected in the EU parliament is a few months to a few years, so the discussion here would rest on the likelihood of a future event. I don't intend to prove this point further but in my timeline only that the EU conference happened was mentioned. I don't believe you work or worked in the EU parliament so the argument here is unnecessary. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is what matters here. We aren't going to speculate on future legislation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the starting point here is to prove importance, which doesn't need something to be passed into law as a proof. The UN in 1977 did adopt decisions to investigate UFOs, "Establishment of an agency or a department of the United Nations for undertaking, co-ordinating and disseminating the results of research into unidentified flying objects and related phenomena". It didn't come to fruition in the end.

In the US, the Federal Aviation Administration has regulations on UFO/UAP reporting, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap9_section_8.html VaudevillianScientist (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really does. As pointed out multiple times, things get done by motion all the time and wind up being immaterial. Motions existing is not a valid argument of notability. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do follow the news, especially closely on this topic, and have no idea what you're talking about. The only "aviation safety issue" I have seen regarding UFOs lately is lots of pilots seeing Starlink flares and not knowing what they are. And then there're those embarrassing displays being done at the US Congress, with cranks and frauds "whistleblowing" some fanciful hearsay, but none of that amounts to "the government recognizing" anything. I wasn't "assuming" anything, I was responding to the evidence being given for a claim that, as far as I can tell, is false. VdSV9•♫ 20:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as probably not necessary. Timelines are useful for well-attested to histories and progressions. There is not really even a coherent subject matter here as there are combinations of fictions, religions, mental health, hoaxes and grift, military (in)competence, politics, and pseudoscience. Better off dealing with this in narrative/prose form instead of trying to curate a timeline whose inclusion criteria will be harder to figure out than List of UFO sightings. jps (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are no fictions, one book on potential connection to religion has been removed. There are no hoaxes or grift, which belong to another list. The (astro)physical and psychological aspects are the two major directions, the other aspects are about data collection efforts, which could be from governmental agencies or research institutions. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are no (astro)physical aspects of ufology. jps (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For sky survey level research, they are looking for astronomical and astrophysical events that are UAPs.

  https://doi.org/10.1142%2FS2251171723400068

  https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00558 VaudevillianScientist (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Avi Loeb and Kevin Knuth's credulity when it comes to UFOs is ignored and derided by the mainstream community. See WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is in no position to right that wrong (if it is indeed a wrong). jps (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, so in your opinion, who are the big players in the mainstream ufology community? Would you consider GEIPAN from France or Ufology Research from Canada that publishes annual sky survey of sighting events as fringe as well? VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You misunderstand. I make no claims for who is "big" in the UFO community. I am arguing that the few and brave (astro)physicists who are true believers (or carrying water as such) do not constitute (astro)physics being an "aspect" of ufology. jps (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That part I can agree. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also a part of the Ufology#Current interest VaudevillianScientist (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The criteria is so vague that the article will mislead the readers. Azuredivay (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not anymore after significant edits. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. The article remains a WP:POVFORK for poorly sourced, non-notable, pro-fringe content. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I don't intend to convince you anymore @JoJo Anthrax. Unless you provide your list of notable entries that fit the topic. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is absolutely not on me to provide [my] list of notable entries that fit the topic. In this forum, the aim is to reach a consensus on whether this article is worthy of inclusion in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. And as for I don't intend to convince you anymore @JoJo Anthrax, per WP:PA it would perhaps be best to restrict comments to the topic/content, not the contributor(s). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is an encyclopedia and not my personal collection of things, which I'd put elsewhere with more ease. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm on the fence about this as I'm not 100% convinced it needs to be deleted. Ufology is notable in the Wikipedia sense. But to properly be a 'Timeline of Ufology', the inclusion criteria needs to be in the context of extraterrestrial UFOs, including the supposed government efforts to cover them up. The entries should be properly cited by a reliable source. I don't think speculative UFOlogy books should be included unless they satisfy the Wikipedia notability criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there shouldn't be too speculative or conspiracy-laden entries in books or other media formats. There are already some entries on the governmental efforts to cover them up in the timeline. It probably requires other editors to make them complete. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Under the new title, this is a theoretically notable subject. UFOlogy is a real thing, and it has developed over time. There have been major events that have shaped it. It should be possible to create this timeline. However, it would need to be constructed from sources which allow us to judge the significance of an event. Those sources will be histories of UFOlogy that place events in context and allow us to sift the significant ones from the insignificant ones. An event cannot be placed on this timeline just because it happened. That way lies only original research. An ideal source would say something like "In 1993, the release of the TV show The X Files caused a surge in public interest in UFOs" (I don't know if that's true, it's just an example of the kind of evidence that would justify putting an event on this list). If someone can make an argument that such sources exist and are of sufficient quality and number that we could build an article around them, then I would be happy to keep this article, but if such sources are not forthcoming, then the article is moribund. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a fair statement. I'm open to discussions about which entries to keep as some of the editors have already done. For entries whose influence are not immediately recognized, I would use something that came up much later. This applies to many pre-2000s entries. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but severely Prune Listing when governments created organizations to investigate UFOs, or make official comments about them, makes sense. Mentioning a YouTube podcast about UFOs makes no sense at all. There have been a large number of books published about this, and some have their own articles since they get reviewed, that doesn't mean they are notable to the study of UFOs. Listing popular entertainment media that just has UFOs in it makes no sense, nor even documentaries about it since that's just entertainment. Dream Focus 04:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed the podcast. I previously consider it as a form of data collection and Andy's podcast was the first of its kind. I kept the History channel documentary because that's the first place where the five observables were introduced. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you should review WP:RSPHISTORY - the History Channel is not a reliable source. Specifically because of things like UFO "documentaries." Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You probably want to investigate that specific point before passing judgements. I'm aware of history channel's spotted reputation, but the information there has no bearing on the existence/non-existence of UFOs/UAPs. They are cited academic writings as the first mention of the five observables for characterizing UFOs/UAPs. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have posted this message on the talk page of the article, it was in response to several conversations I (and others) have been trying to have with Vaudevillian Scientist. I'm reproducing my message here as I know it will disappear when the article is deleted. "You don't seem to understand VS. Look at this timeline submission you just edited "2010 August - Leslie Kean published her book UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record'". Leslie Kean is Wikipedia notable, but her book is not. The media does not recognize it as a book worthy of them writing about, so why are you adding it to the timeline? You seem to think this is an important work. You are doing original research which is not allowed. You are deciding what should be on the timeline, you are deciding what is important to this topic. Clearly the wider world does not find this important or notable enough to single it out and focus their limited time on. This is what I'm trying to explain. You are the sole arbitrator of what to include. Wikipedia just can't allow an article for Vaudevillian Scientist's list of most important moments in UFO history, that is what a personal website is for. We have asked you over and over and you are not getting it. I'm sorry as I see you have committed a lot of time working on this timeline and I see you are continuing to fuss over it, but it is a failed attempt. To keep throwing more and more content at it, when it wasn't thought through in the first place and you have ignored our concerns is not a good use of your time (in my opinion) We have all been there VS, we are so focused on our vision of things we can't see that it's not going to remain. It's a painful lesson, but it is a lesson. I will be voting delete in the AfD discussion because of this reason. " Sgerbic (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your reasoning is very flawed. Kean's wiki bio did list the book, it didn't mention the book to a great extent because nobody had the time to write about it there. Wikipedia is an evolving enterprise and most of the articles are far from complete (whatever that means). Her book is actually featured on major serious venues for UAP studies or public events since the mid-2010s. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My reasoning is my reasoning which I have clearly articulated here. Kean's book does not have a Wikipedia article which is what I stated, "nobody had the time to write" looks like a lot of time is being eaten up here in this discussion and fussing around with an article that is up for AfD. You still aren't getting it, it is clear that YOU think things are notable so therefore they are notable. Wikipedia does not work that way, we need RS to prove that things are notable. Telling me her book has been mentioned in places is not helping your argument, if it is so notable then write the Wikipedia article proving it. I'm singling you out VaudevillianScientist because this is obviously your pet project, you are answering every comment here in this discussion and telling us why we are wrong. Take a break and work on something else and let the AfD process work. There will be an answer in days probably. Sgerbic (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed her book, but i feel sorry for Leslie. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know why you call me the sole arbiter, there are apparently others who contributed to the editing. Really, this timeline would have been easier to be converted to another format so it can skip the drama of the fringe community. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete list appears to be rife with WP:PROFRINGE cruft. Also appears to have issues with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The best this list could likely aspire to is a profringe coatrack. Simonm223 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no original research, everything is mentioned within the references, and they are not synthesized from multiple sources. You seem to try very hard to cook up reasons here. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:VaudevillianScientist - It is neither necessary nor useful to respond to every comment in an AFD, and it does not increase the likelihood of the article being kept. The closer should base their close on strength of arguments, but that is not the same as length of arguments. See the essay cautioning against bludgeoning. You are being cautioned against bludgeoning this AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable subject, could do well with some improvements like better sourcing and maybe removing all the book publications or clear criteria for these as Rjjiii notes. Likewise, issues with the title can also be addressed without deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Prototyperspective (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. See here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair note but I'd also like to note that I would have most likely found this AfD also without that note since before the user page comment I already found out about the article (because of a wikilink) and intended to keep an eye on it. Furthermore, I find the practice of posting UAP-related AfDs to the Fringe noticeboard more problematic (as it involves more than 1 contributor and occurs regularly) and also canvassing but we can disagree. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For whoever closes this discussion, please note that while it has been open it has experienced several violations of on-Wiki WP:CANVASSING by VaudevillianScientist. Those violations include: this, which is less an attempt at dispute resolution (no other editors were even listed) than a canvass attempt; this and this, with both containing the same canvassing request: If you guys think it's necessary, could you save it [the Timeline of UFOs article] by voting in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of UFOs?; and this, which is easily interpreted as an attempt (a successful one, too) to canvass a like-minded editor. Lastly, an off-Wiki canvassing attempt has been reported here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not limited to Twitter posts only. I've also found some off-wiki canvassing on Reddit. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that I would have noticed this AfD anyway also without the user notifying me just likely at a slightly later point. I don't know why the user asked could you save it instead of just informing the relevant WikiProject about it, that's not okay but also not a big issue I think. Moreover, I see an issue of canvassing by posting about AfDs (or at least AfDs about UAP subjects) to the Fringe theories noticeboard. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  People have complained about posting to FTN before, but so far the community sees nothing wrong with a neutral post to a relevant noticeboard. It is not considered canvassing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact is that you were directly canvassed by the article's creator. In your own words, that is not okay because it violates a WP guideline. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The general opinion of the fringe noticeboard on any UAP-related subject is well-known. In contrast, my one-user opinion on AfDs of such articles apparently was not known to this user. In the guideline it says Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions but it seems like the user only notified one user which is limited. Moreover, notifying users with no significant connection to the topic at hand seems discouraged at that guideline while I do have a connection with that subject in that I have extensively researched the sciency part of it and the user seems to have notified me because of that (he said because I uploaded some image from some UAP study). I think that people literate in a certain topic are of special relevance and improve the overall quality of debates on the subject and that notifying them is consistent with the guideline. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A noticeboard is just a noticeboard and has no "general opinion"s. Frankly, as someone who watches the fringe noticeboard, there are often heated disagreements among the regular page watchers there. There is some truth that the sort of people who watch the noticeboard are also the sort of people who tend to be skeptical about claims of UFOs. However that's a self-selection bias. Nothing stops pro-UFO people from watching and participating on that noticeboard if they so choose. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, JoJo Anthrax, those who want to post off-Wiki have their free choice. They are not me. You are trying to excuse people without proof. On Wikipedia I posted save if it's necessary not forcing people to do anything. The fact that I didn't include other authors on the dispute resolution post is because I didn't find where to put them in the first place. I clearly have missed a step filling in the form. Posting on other topic boards is a suggestion offered to me at the dispute resolution noticeboard. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The concept of a 'timeline' isn't an independently notable one for this topic, and what we have here is an indiscriminate list with no clear inclusion criteria, which largely duplicates existing articles and lists. - MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to AfD closer. The article has been saved in the Internet Archive here. 5Q5|^✉ 13:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note VaudevillianScientist has been blocked for one month, and will no longer be able to participate in this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:POVFORK. The article is essentially a WP:PROFRINGE list of events given in support of Ufology from the perspective of a believer. It removes those events outside of critical context by essentially not engaging with any relevant skepticism/criticism. A prose history of Ufology could better present these events in necessary context so as to maintain a WP:NPOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2024 (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.