Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:18, 22 March 2022

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. BLP issues appear to have been resolved by the inclusion of sources. No consensus to merge, and no other side issues have consensus support. On a side-note, WP:CLS has some info about advantages and dis-ads of categories, lists, etc. --Chaser - T 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

List of alleged contactees

List of alleged contactees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

We already have a category Category:Contactees. That's as it should be, because what goes in the category is decided by each article so categorrised. A list like this is a problem as it is unreferenced and thus a potential WP:BLP nightmare. Best to delete this and leave the category. -Doc 10:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - "alleged" =/= reliable sources. Will 11:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" is a word most usually forced by skeptics, we can rename it List of contactees if you so desire but I bet you that there will be a dispute over it by skeptics who believe that the name would imply that contactees were real. - perfectblue 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this article list alleged UFO contactees based on their own articles, so I am not sure why this is a bad article, its a great place for those interested to get a list of alleged contactees (note i created this article on) (:O) -Nima Baghaei 12:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is unneccessary. The same information can be obtained by the Category:Contactees. And your article doesn't have any citation to defend inclusion, whereas people are added to the category by categorising the articles themselves, which doubtless are cited.--Doc 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

for a list, lacking citations is a taggable offence, not grounds for Afd. If it concerns you so much you may go to the individual articles and tag and simply cut and past the citations over. - perfectblue 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• the citation is in their own articles, i just go back and list them here for easier access (:O) -Nima Baghaei 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, BLP prohibits that. All negative assertions about a living person, which this is, need referenced in the article itself. Otherwise it would be too easy to add someone to the list without any citations and it not to be spotted. Still, I'm not hearing how this helps us when we have a category?--Doc 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"BLP prohibits that. All negative assertions about a living person", being a contactee is not a "negative assertions" for most contactees, your statement is bias. Allegedly being in touch with aliens isn't like allegedly being ritually abused, its like allegedly kissing a supermodel for most of these people. - perfectblue 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• The article really helps clarify and make it easy access for those interested, and I feel adds to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Paranormal (:O) -Nima Baghaei 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you've said that. Now tell me how?--Doc 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• it provides a quick access for those looking for a list of alleged contactees, especially for those new to wikipedia, those not familiar with contactees, those who just want to expand their own data bank on contactees, etc... it is just a great method of listing contactees for the general public to view and have quick and useful access to (:O) -Nima Baghaei 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for which we have already got: Category:Contactees.--Doc 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• And what if they do not get listed in that category? They maybe listed here, its a great place also for others to view who may not consider first looking for the Category:Contactees, how will they know to look at this category if they are unfamiliar with wikipedia? how will they know to search for a list of contactees if they dont even know the names and know nothing about categories? (:O) -Nima Baghaei 15:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. If the find any article in the category, then they'll see the category. Much more likely to find that than type the name of the list into 'search'. Category is also much more likely to be kept up to date.--Doc 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• reference addition completed, also note that some may not know to look first at the Contactee category, this article provides a place for everyone (even those new to wikipedia) a place to find a list of Contactees plus references (which is not possible via category only) especially if they do not know of any alleged contactees and are looking for an article to look at or through to get some idea (:O) -Nima Baghaei 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Not very big at present, but could be monumentally expanded into a much more concise resource. It brings together desperate people people with a unique commonality together and provides a central resource for accessing them. The very description of a classic list. - perfectblue 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; Article will compliment Category:Contactees. Article can give a broad overview of the category. A list like this is needs references to be in line with WP:BLP though, which should not be too hard. J. D. Redding 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to List of Contactees, or List of Self-Proclaimed Contactees. A contactee is by definition a person who alleges to be in regular contact with extraterrestrials. You don't want invite WP:BLP violation by allowing editors to add names of people who are alleged by others to be in contact with extraterrestrials. --Work permit 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I couldn't agree more. We really need to keep this list for people whom say that they were contacted, and to keep out the people who are the subject of allegations from other people which would be much more likely to violate Bio regs - perfectblue 07:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename--this is really generic--I was expecting to see fallout from Venona (smile). Those who do not want to known as being in the group do not publicize their experiences.DGG 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but put the list in at least 2 columns to keep the page length small. ;) -Eep² 20:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I strongly agree with Doc. The page is redundant as it duplicates information that should be on just the contactee page. The list should be merged back into Contactee where it was before. Sean Donovan 06:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all the information, Merge the articles in question to avoid data rendundancy. --Chr.K. 08:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 12:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if kept then "purported" is better than "alleged" but the sum total of objective evidence supporting these purported contacts is a big fat zero. Do we have list of delusional individuals? Guy (Help!) 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems ok, if they're notable Bulldog123 11:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. >Radiant< 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, potential WP:BLP issues and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A category would be far preferable in this instance. -- Kesh 05:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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.