Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Moore (ufologist)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Moore (ufologist)[edit]

Claim is that this is a "well-known" ufologist. Hmm, I cannot find third-party (non-ufological, that is) sources that seem to think he is all that "well known". He wrote a couple of non-notable books and seems to be farmed out a lot to UFO-conventions. That's about it. I don't think he's particularly encyclopedia-worthy. WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in a small field does not require people outside the field to find the person notable. "Charles Goren" is famouns in the bridge world, but not really well-known among, say, biologists. Collect (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but notable in a small field doesn't mean notable enough for a Wikipedia article either. Notability in UFOlgoy might be enough for UFOlogopedia, but not for here. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable in his field; notability outside of the field is not required. Article needs serious work, but this is not a reason to delete. Useful sources: [1], They Know Us Better Than We Know Ourselves Bridget Brown, NYU Press 2007, Conspiracy Theories in American History Peter Knight ISBN 1576078124. One of the leading investigators in the Roswell incident and MJ-12 conspiracy theories, two of the best known UFO-related conspiracy theories in existence. One has to question whether the nominator actually did any research into whose article he was nominating before doing so. JulesH (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"notability outside of the field is not required" -- where on earth did you ever get that idea? DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the idea from the fact that Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not say that it is. Niklaus Wirth is not notable outside of the field of computer science; perhaps we should delete the article on him also? JulesH (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he's as notable as JulesH asserts, he should be found readily in some mainstream journalism. However, 3 pages of Google results found nothing but other UFO websites, and Wikipedia mirrors. Unfortunately, UFO websites aren't neutral about the veracity of one of their own. With no real, reliable information, delete. ThuranX (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's found readily in google news archives and google books. Juzhong (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he co-authored some of the biggest books in Ufology/alternative science field (getting both Roswell and the Philadelphia Experiment into the public arena) and was an intelligence asset in the disinformation campaign waged against Paul Bennewitz as well as being one of the group who released the Majestic 12 documentation. The book Project Beta is basically all about him and I can use that to fill in quite a bit of background. The main problem is that he is... controversial and it will need a little care to avoid WP:BLP issues but it is doable. (Emperor (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Desperately needs sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability -- multiple instances of nontrivial third party reliable sources explaining why the world as a whole (as compared to UFOlogists) should care. If those can be found, then find them and put them in the article. Without any it should be deleted -- and if you come up with some later, then go ask for an undelete. No reason to keep bad articles around without improving them just by asserting that they could be improved but not proving it by actually doing it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:DEADLINE. Also see WP:DELETION which states that articles that can be fixed by editing should be in preference to deletion. JulesH (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a combination of not meeting notability standards as well as being an unreferenced BLP. If it can be reliably sourced, then I do not oppose recreating it. MuZemike (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Emperor. travb (talk) 22:00, 31 December 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.