Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Bonilla Observation

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 no consensus. Black Kite 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Bonilla Observation

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

Too obscure for its own article (the subject of a few paragraphs in a 19th century astronomy journal). Lacking third-party sourcing and independent acknowledgment outside of the community of proponents who dug up this observation in the first place that Wikipedia requires of fringe proposals. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bonilla observation has been written about in many books [1]. However, the article should be rewritten to focus on Bonilla's life and career. Warrah (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These books are all poor sources: unreliable UFO sensationalism and one book that actually uses this article as a source. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the publishers of these "poor sources" include Science Digest and a pair of peer-reviewed university presses, University Press of Kentucky and University Press of New England. Warrah (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the first source, we should redirect this article to goose. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly significant mention in either of those texts, I might add. The first attributes it to geese unequivocally and

Keep Unsure what is meant by the wording "requires of fringe proposals". I would think this incident has been covered in numerous locations over the past 127 years. Wouldn't it be better to put the emphasis on digging up references that are likely to exist rather than moving for deletion? __meco (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can point to someone who isn't a credulous ufologist discussing this, that would help. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any independent sources covering this "observation". It doesn't have any traction outside of a few UFOlogy publications desperately trying to interpret it as a UFO related milestone or Fortean mystery. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned Google book search [[2]. Warrah (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books whose titles use phrases like "unsolved", "unexplained", "secrets revealed", "conspiracy", "monsters, mysteries" etc. aren't authoritative sources for notable astronomical events. What remains from University Press of Kentucky and Science Digest are trivial passing mentions of the subject, maybe worthy of a Merge with UFO, but not a separate article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some other sources and translated the French one. It appears to be a notable event, especially if it is the first ever photographically recorded sighting of a UFO. Silver seren^C 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Obama has promised to tell the whole truth about extraterrestrials" ??? That's one of the links that was added. Not good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L'Occidentale is a legitimate paper, regardless of the title of the article link. If you do not have any legitimate reason to remove the link, some legitimate concern about L'Occidentale, then it should remain, as disliking the title of it is not a reason to discredit it. Silver seren^C 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should explain why you feel that L'Occidentale is a reliable, trustworthy source for objective facts. The story is about Obama preparing to "reveal the truth about space aliens", and is clearly a hoax. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest of the sources are then as equally unreliable? Silver seren^C 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That only counts for two of the titles, what about the other two? Silver seren^C 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which two? You might want to specify which titles you feel represent an independent and objective discussion of the subject, and why they are of significant depth and detail to warrant its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reading the article I would think that this would be notable, but without independent in depth coverage ... - 2/0 (cont.) 17:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and Improve - Reading this article it is small but you can easily improve it. It is obvious this observation location is real, it is semi-notable and if you just add some more bulk onto the article it will become more notable and 'readable'. Whenaxis (talk) 11:16, 5 April 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.