Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howden Moor Incident

: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. MBisanz talk 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Howden Moor Incident]]=

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

A lot of original research went into attempting to "document" this "incident" with the excuses made in the article that the evidence is all classified. No third-party independent sources verify that this is a major incident. Just because Helen Jackson brought it up in parliament, that does not mean we've got ourselves a notable event. Merge a sentence or two to Helen Jackson and Dark Peak if you can find independent media corroboration or the records from the House of Commons. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

:: that said the article definately needs reliable sources in order to meet WP:N - The bibliography [http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/casehowd16.htm here] would probably be a good place to start. Artw (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Not supported by any reliable sources and, given the nature of the topic, unlikely to ever meet WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep If it is admitted that it was a qy in the House, then there will be records, s there always are. DGG (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment Could you please find some? Thousands of questions get asked in the British House of Commons each year and are put in writing to Ministers. Few attract any media attention. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep: This article is bad and it is full OR, but the event is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion. Conversely being full of OR is not a deletable offence, saying that; I fully support the removal of any unsourced content, or stuff not reliably sourced. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - topic is notable, per DGG and Ryan. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The only material supported by a reliable source is the parliamentary question, and that's supported only by a link to the parliamentary records which, by itself isn't enough to show that this is notable in isolation (I note that this was a written question, and they normally get much less, if any, media coverage than questions asked during parliamentary sessions). This reference, moreover, doesn't verify any of the UFO material in the article as the minister stated that this 'incident' was a routine military exercise and that the Ministry hadn't received any UFO reports. What reliable sources demonstrate notability or verify that this 'incident' has a significant place in UFO-folklore? Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

::Yes I was wondering this, I did some Googling but what counts as a reliable source in the UFO world lol? I am starting to wonder if we trimmed out all the unreliable content and original research (which I condone), what we would have left? Ryan4314 (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Lots of serious academic papers, books and newspaper articles have been written on the belief that UFOs exist - these cover topics such as what motivates this belief, prominent incidents and the like. If any of these covered this 'incident' they would make a very suitable reference for demonstrating notability. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

::::I've thought about it and I think it's best to strike my vote until we see some improvement of the sources (to the calibre mentioned above). Ryan4314 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::The implications of a source as Nick identifies above is that the article itself would also need to change significantly, moving away from a sequence of events towards a discussion of the nature of the reports and their impact. I think that would more usefully fit into an article about spurious UFO reports in general, rather than the specific about one.

:::::Getting hold of anything credible which does anything more than identify this as one of many spurious reports is probably going to be the difficulty. Conspiracy headbangers are reporting these kind of things with monotonous regularity, it keeps duty COs occupied at weekends.

:::::ALR (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: fails WP:V because there is only one source, which itself may not pass WP:RS, thus WP:N also fails. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Hansard, as an official government record, clearly passes WP:RS. What it does not pass, I think, is the requirement in WP:N that the sources in question be secondary sources. JulesH (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • My error, have struck that section. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's perfectly secondary. The government had nothing to do with the people who directly claimed to have observed the incident. If it fails WP:N it is because it lacks MULTIPLE secondary sources (two refs from the same source are still ONE source). - Mgm|(talk) 13:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:N would absolutely be met if the references in national and local newspapers mentioned by the article (and in the bibliography to the David Clarke article above) could be confirmed. Google has not been helpful on that. Artw (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is recent enough that we could expect reliable sources to be available online if the subject was notable, but searching for "Howden Moor"+ufo in [http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=6qe&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22Howden+Moor%22%2Bufo the Google News archive] finds nothing, [http://books.google.co.uk/books?num=100&hl=en&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=6qe&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Howden%20Moor%22%2Bufo&sa=N&tab=np Google Books] only finds a "believe or not" piece of trivia and a [http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=6qe&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Howden%20Moor%22%2Bufo&sa=N&tab=pw Google web search] finds nothing outside of conspiracy theory forums and blogs. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the scrambling of aircraft, extensive searching and the mere fact of clasification combine to provide a decent amount of notability. A [http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIC_en-GBGB255GB255&q=Howden+Moor+Incident Google search] does turn up a few sources; it appears to be well enough known amongst those who follow such events. [http://www.mysterymag.com/casebook/?page=category&subID=109 Here] is one source discussing the subject in great detail (it calls it "what was to become one of the most controversial incidents in British UFOlogy"), [http://www.sheffieldontheinternet.co.uk/ghost.html this] looks pretty reliable and talks of 999 reports of a large explosion the source of which was never identified - something I find notable given the attempts to do so - so, in short, there is some real evidence of this being a notable incident. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Independent; reliable; non-trivial; I can find all three, but not in the same source. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep (reluctantly) -- I do not believe in flying saucers, but some people do passionately. There appear to be credible sources for this, though more citations are needed. The allusions to "lack of official sources" should be removed: this is typical conspiracy theory stuff. The rational explanation is that official sources are not available either (a) becasue there are none or (b) due to the normal 30-year rule, though this is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I suspect that if the article is deleted, it will be recreated under anotehr name by those who believe in UFOs. It may thus be better to keep the present article, and get it properly sourced, ideally with any explanation that may exist for the allegedly observed phenomenon. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a parlimentary question on low flying training does not make the article notable. Happy to change to keep if it had any sources about sightings, police press statements or even local newspaper stories but without it is WP:OR and not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non story, a potential air to air is reported, investigated and nothing is found. The fact that a politician asked a question in the madhouse about it doesn't make it any less of a nonevent. No evidence of corroboraiton therefore fails notability. ALR (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2009 (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.