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.
I think this one fails WP:BIO. He is noted by other UFO-enthusiasts as an important person in their circles, but he doesn't seem to have received the outside notice we require for WP:FRINGE bios. jps (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar The problem with your argument here, jps, is that WP:FRINGE discusses how to write and edit articles about fringe theories, but doesn't directly address biographies of fringe theorists. I agree that fringe sources shouldn't be used to establish notability and that discussion of these people's theories in such articles should comply with WP:FRINGE . But standard practice on biographical notability and sourcing should cover all biographies, including those of UFO theorists. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, precedent at Wikipedia is that WP:FRINGE is a notability criterion for theories and proponents. The reason for this is because fringe communities are notorious for synergistic self-promotion. It's an "I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine" sort of thing. If a person gets coverage by another fringe-enthusiast who publishes about them in a fringe periodical, journal, or on-line source, that doesn't necessarily give them the notability required. It is peculiar, but fringe theorists actually tend to be over-fit for our typical WP:BIO criteria for this reason. That's why it's important to take this into account. In the past, people have been hoodwinked by simple Google-news searches or even Google-scholar searches which can and do index fringe theorists the exact same way as they would normal sources. The problem arises when you actually try to use these sources to write an article. You just can't and fulfill the requirements of WP:NPOV. That's why WP:FRINGE exists: to forestall this issue. jps (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not have wide notability that's independent of his posthumous popularization within the UFOlogy community. He may rate mention in a UFO-related article, but not an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2010 (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.
Keep It seems there is currently a push among self-styled "skeptical" keepers of the truth to write a number of major Ufologists out of history. Besides Wilbert Smith, add Richard Hall, Timothy Good, Jerry Clark, and Paul R. Hill. Their "sin" has been to study and/or write major works on the subject of UFOs. But what one personally feels about the subject is irrelevant. The key question is are they major figures within the subject? The answer is yes. Wikipedia is for the public at large, not the elitist few who want to censor subject matter because they don't like it. The public should have a ready reference on the backgrounds of MAJOR figures in ANY subject, regardless of what one may personally feel about it. In the case of Wilbert Smith, he officially headed the Canadian government's UFO studies for several years (Project Magnet and Project Second Story). This was done with both the approval and support of the Canadian Defence Research Board, a cabinet level position. The Top Secret government memo he wrote on an official briefing he received from the U.S. on the subject of UFOs (arranged through the Canadian embassy in Washington) is an important historical document. Why shouldn't the interested Wikipedia reader know some of the back story on this and the creation of Project Magnet, which the memo led to? I also see a lot of self-serving rationales for deletion, including allegedly lack of "mainstream" sources. Even though Jerry Clark is considered a first-rate historian of the subject (his massive "UFO Encyclopedia" has won "mainstream" awards and is considered a standard library reference work on the topic), apparently this isn't "mainstream" enough to be used as a reference, simply because a few skeptics declare it so. What we have here is circular arguments in play, used as justifications to delete articles. Simply declare references as not mainstream without decent justification. Thus any article that uses them automatically lacks "mainstream" references. Then declare there are no mainstream references, the article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, and use this as a justification to censor the article. I'm really tired of these intellectually dishonest games.Dr Fil (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
