Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Salla (2nd 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 delete. Secret ^account 03:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Salla

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

An ufologist. His views (that aliens have had secret meetings with politicians, etc.) appear to have gathered some followers and a bit of media attention a few years ago. But a Google News Archives search reveals no substantial coverage, and the references in the article are the usual potpourri of press releases, other self-published material, dead links (e.g., a Feb 19, 2004 Washington Post article that is no longer accessible), passing mentions, and media coverage of groups or movements with similar views but whose connection to this person is not apparent. The term "exopolitics" that he associates himself with has apparently a variety of uses. (It had an article once too; there was a no consensus AfD in 2009 and then it was merged with his biography.) In view of this, he and his "movement" may well fail WP:GNG. If kept, the article would need a substantial BLP cleanup, perhaps a stubbing. Sandstein 19:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not interested in defending this article, but as a general point, the Washington Post article does exist, and is accessible in various forms. I can email it to you, if you want. The fact that a link is dead doesn't mean it is invalid as a reference (especially if it comes from a major newspaper, which has surely been archived). Zagalejo^^^ 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but if it's offline, we can't check whether it contains substantial coverage of this person. If it's around online, could you post a link here? Sandstein 21:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a HighBeam account? It's available there [1], as well as similar sites. If you Google for any specific phrase you see at the HighBeam preview, you can also find the article in its entirety at various message boards and UFO websites, but most of those hits are probably copyright violations, so I won't link directly to them. But anyway, there are lots of ways of getting past the dead link issue. Zagalejo^^^ 02:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found it, thanks. It's about the notion that Eisenhower met with aliens, and has something like four paragraphs about Salla by way of background as the person advancing that theory. I'm not sure whether this conveys notability for Salla rather than for that idea of his. Sandstein 07:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, even if it does, we'd need another piece from a reliable source for him to meet the WP:GNG. Pardon my cynicism, but reliable sources seem rather thin on the ground in the field of ufology! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gscholar h-index of 7, no other signs of passing WP:PROF. Coverage in reliable sources (which are thin on the ground indeed for the UFO movement) is scant to nonexistent, so fails WP:BIO as well - news mentions are fairly trivial. Ray^Talk 05:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He appears not to pass the other criteria of WP:PROF, so the best chances of notability are either criterion C7 (outside impact) or WP:GNG. But while the "Ike and the alien ambassadors" story (available through highbeam) has some depth of coverage of the subject, the other references listed here don't, nor does a Mother Jones 2007 story I found in highbeam. But I'm willing to change my mind if additional in-depth and reliably published sources turn up. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2013 (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.