Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (3rd nomination)

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 speedy deleted and salted, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination), and comments below. -- The Anome (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exopolitics

In my opinion, the worldview conveyed in this article is covered effectively in other articles, while this article conveys the inaccurate impression that it is nonfiction. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree that this is represented as definate non-fiction. The aim was to put forward the claims of individuals and their reasoning behind it. I feel that there are a reasonable amount of sources for what i have mentioned but I do not think that I have represented the information as 100% fact nor implied that it is conventional opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was curious about the content of the article that had been recently AfD'd -- the second nomination -- because this new article came so close on its heels. The second nominated article was somewhat closer to reality; this present one is simply ridiculous. "A dead Grey" indeed. I recommend deletion, SALT, and a badly-filmed autopsy in Area 51. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have to acknowledge that there is a place in Wikipedia for the annotation of the existence of such beliefs, but that's a far cry from (a) explaining them in great detail, which leads to (b) their being lent a scrap of credence by being so annotated in an encyclopedia. I think WP:FRINGE comes into play here. The more that a theory is -- let's call it "difficult to accept" -- the greater amount of proof and verifiability by being considered notable by reliable sources ought to be present. The germ of information that defines the word "exopolitics" has been completely obscured here by WP:FRINGE. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that this encyclopedia should have this type of information available. I dont think that people's professional opinions should be ignored just because they are unconventional. You should still allow other people research to be put forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the other articles that mention et intelligence are not adequately networked. That was one of the main purposes of making this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. The extraterrestial life article is quite enough - we do no need more. And what on earth does "not adequately networked" mean? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that if someone went on wikipedia there isnt a page that talks about the overall claims of these people. so if u just wanted to research claims of et activity there isnt a page that links to the other ones like this one does. I am happy to edit the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (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.