Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andromedans (extraterrestrial)

: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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Andromedans (extraterrestrial)]]=

:{{la|Andromedans (extraterrestrial)}} ([{{fullurl:Andromedans (extraterrestrial)|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andromedans (extraterrestrial)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No indication that this a recognized term. The two outside sources: the Guardian and Space.com do not use the term (I believe that the references are being put in there to improperly maintain this article as being notable). Since there are only primary sources, this article is essentially a fringe soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:Delete, AfD rationale pretty much says it all. The two solid sources don't actually discuss the ostensible topic, which apparently doesn't exist outside of fringey sources. <eleland/talkedits> 01:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:Delete I removed the Guardian reference, which was being misrepresented, as well as a paragraph of unsourced speculation. Still appears to be non-notable OR. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::Comment It's a little disingenuous to claim space.com as a source, since it only mentions that Alex Collier believes in Andromedans. A better source would be Alex Collier himself, which would then run into notability problems. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete nothing notable about this, keeping in mind WP:RS and WP:V. JJL (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the nominator's rationale (and because they mean to win Wimbledon). Deor (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Borderline hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to A for Andromeda per [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=106423 Richard Dawkins]. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:Few people would associate the term "andromedans" with this TV series since the term is not actually used there as such very much (the name of the main character in the series, a creature artificially created on Earth using instructions from an alien radio signal, is "Andromeda") and not that many people outside of U.K. are familiar with the TV series anyway. To the extent that the term is actually used in real life, it is by UFO conspiracy theorists and UFO believers in general who think that andromedans are the real thing, that they did in fact visit Earth, etc (the text of the article actually makes it clear). So if one were to redirect this entry anywhere, a more logical target would be something like UFO conspiracy theory or Extraterrestrials or Unidentified flying object or something else along those lines. In this case the usage is sufficiently rare that no redirect is required. Nsk92 (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, I don't think this term is in wide use. JIP | Talk 14:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. Given that the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, it would be a hassle for anyone from there to come visit us here on Earth, even the "angels". This would work only as an article about fictional references to the galaxy, such as in the Star Trek episode, "By Any Other Name". Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is a hoax. QuantumShadow (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.