Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonsall UFO

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsall UFO[edit]

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

Our guidelines for writing articles about these kinds of subjects explicitly warn against using News-of-the-Weird or slow news day reporting to establish notability of an event of dubious provenance. This seems to me to be exactly the case with this stub. There is not likely to be any further development of sources which would satisfy our independent sourcing requirements and this remains essentially a WP:ONEEVENT problem here. jps (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable here, just old news, and never much news. Szzuk (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think there is enough reliably sourced content available to justify an independent article. The only reliable source seems to be the BBC article linked in the external links section. The content should be summarized and added to UFO sightings in the United Kingdom.- Mr X 16:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrX. Insufficient in depth coverage for its own article. Best to merge any usable content to UFO sightings in the United Kingdom. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could be mentioned in UFO sightings in the United Kingdom, as it apparently followed other UFO sightings in Derbyshire (Derby Telegraph mention of these, but not including Bonsall, as well as passing mentions in coverage of Bonsall sightings). I'm not sure that it's worth mentioning in that article, but as there's a possibility that it could be used, or at least discussed, in development of that article, I suggest moving it to a talk or user subpage. Peter James (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There were multiple sources of independent reliable source coverage of the event in 2000-2001, in BBC News, The Mirror, Straits Times (apparently - mentioned, not linked), and other news sources, which as nominator points out could be dismissed as "slow news day" stories spanning eight months. However, less-detailed accounts in this 2008 Sciences 360 article and this 2013 book suggest that the incident has attracted ongoing attention in reliable sources, lending credence its perceived importance. It also seems to transcend WP:ONEEVENT status by having a lasting impact, spawning ongoing reports ("known internationally as a UFO hotspot") in this 2008 book, UFO tours/walks & "International Bonsall UFO Society" meetings at the Barley Maw pub mentioned in this 2005 book and this 2013 book, and other tourism-drawing UFO nonsense in the area.

The reliability of The Mirror seems dubious. The BBC was careful to avoid confirming even the factually verifiable details, like whether the videotape was really sold or whether NASA said they saw a similar craft; it uses "has reportedly" and "are said to have" to artfully disavow the claims. The Mirror, by contrast, confirmed the payment, the NASA story, and not just that a UFO was filmed over a field, but that "a flying saucer hovered above her home". (A later 2002 Matlock Mirror article identified the film buyer as Fox TV). Of the 3 sources cited in the Wikipedia article, the aboutderbyshire.co.uk article seems well written but equivalent to a personal blog (i.e. one author, no apparent editor/organization, self-published), this UKTV link is dead, and [www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087848/Two-alien-aircraft-sightings-week-Chatham-Kent--UKs-UFO-hotspot.html this Daily Mail article] contains only a minor one-sentence description of the event. The author of the aboutderbyshire.co.uk also wrote a similar piece for peakdistrictonline.co.uk, but that seems to be a tourism site than a news site. Agyle (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - UFO Flap articles tend to be poorly sourced and of limited encyclopedic value. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the category. I'd support merging into a list of British UFO flaps, or plain deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) 08:33, 13 June 2014
Delete The sources are just an echo chamber of space-filling commentary, and there is nothing encyclopedic which can be said about "events" like this. It is possible to create a good article about fake photographs, see Cottingley Fairies, but someone claiming they filmed a UFO with no possible verification and no secondary-source analysis does not make an article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 13 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.