Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National UFO Reporting Center

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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National UFO Reporting Center

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

Peter Davenport runs this one-person organization that simply collects hearsay reports of UFOs. Not a notable organization. No independent notice by non-ufological sources. jps (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete--Gold is Cool (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete--Gold is Cool 2 (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Gold is Cool 3 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Votes struck through and accounts blocked under WP:Sockpuppet. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has something against this guy for some unknown reason. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New sources makes all the difference. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG after Jinkinson has kindly added new sources! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 17:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shook it up, added lots of sources. As the organisation Arizona law officials turned to during the Phoenix Lights incident, I'd say that's pretty good for notability on its own - but they've been in USA today more than once, and The Times, etc. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But definitely: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[1] reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been added, this now meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nom statement seems to suggest that the organization is not notable because it is small and collects hearsay reports. If an organization has received enough coverage to be notable, which does apppear to have happened here, it doesn't really matter what the organization's purpose or size is. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:04, 10 November 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.