Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ahihud incident

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ahihud incident

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

Contested proposed deletion. Did this incident happen? Maybe. Is it notable? As far as anyone can tell, no. Claims of notability are made in the article but have not been substantiated. I tried a machine translation of the one external link. Google translate is usually pretty good with Hebrew but for some reson this came out the other end as unintelligible garbage. There is what appears to be a local news report about this incident on YouTube at [1]. A woman holds what appears to be a moldy chicken bone and claims it is the remains of this alien. In short, if there really was a mysterious creature that, as claimed by the article, was the subject of intense scrutiny by over fifty scientists from two prestigious institutions, would there not be more evidence than a local news story and... well whatever it is the PDF file is supposed to be. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Search reveals nothing about this, and the one link that I had added to the articl in good faith,

has sadly been charcterised as 'unreliable' by other contributors. Unless there are credible sources for this, I thinl this article should be deleted on the basis there doesn't appear to be anything like the level of coverage the claimed notability notes in the article would suggest. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it is a matter of the link being unreliable so much as it being unintelligible, at least via machine translation. I've never seen anything in Hebrew come out so garbled. Do we at least know what the link actually is, who published it, etc?

Just tried a little experiment, it seems as if translating it by copy/pasting line-by-line yields better results for some reason. I got a bit out of it, including that the "alien" was apparently found in a pile of cow dung... I can't say I find that particularly encouraging but again it would be helpful to know what this is in the first place if we are to try and determine it's suitability as a reference. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any sources. Looks like a hoax article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it's not a hoax, it is still rubbish. Zero^talk 20:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a Hebrew speaker can find some reliable sources. At the moment we have an apparently made-up text without visible means of support, and no sign of that on the web. Whether hoax, story or what I have no idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should be deleted based on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS). The article was completely unsourced and its author has not added any sources (in 11 days) despite numerous requests (by several editors) on his Talk page. The article has been speedied twice, PROD'ed once, and is now up at AFD. There has been more than ample time and notice for the author to provide the reliable sources that none of the rest of us have been able to find. Meters (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably hoax. Marokwitz (talk)

Delete - not a single reference, very likely false. If it's real, then refs can be added and it can be resubmitted. But right now, it's very likely a hoax, and at the very least, isn't referenced. --Activism1234 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment After doing more research than I ever thought I'd be doing on UFOs, Here is what I found. I don't think the page is a hoax, although the event clearly was. According to this article (Hebrew, sorry), the authorities announced a few days after the incident that the "creature" was actually cow excrement. This fact's omission from the wiki article makes this the poster-child for WP:UNDUE. (It also makes me more than a little suspicious of the author's intentions). There's also this report, which I assume is the PDF report nom was talking about. The PDF is from the Israeli Extraterrestrial & UFO research Association. Based on the little news coverage I can find of them (all in Hebrew, sorry), they're a standard UFO promoting organization. Their mission is to prove that aliens are real, and they do the usual pseudo-scientific job of providing extraneous detail to promote credibility, quoting people with PHDs in unrelated fields, and cherry picking sources. (For example, why on earth is a pathologist doing the examination on a suspected alien?) The content of the report is basically what's reported on the wiki page. In fact, the report appears to be the only source the wiki page has used to the point where the wiki page is practically just a translation of the report. After spending way too much time on google, those two plus the news report nom already linked to are the only sources I can find on this incident. The Haaretz article st least confirms that the pdf report from eura is not a forgery (apparently prof. Hiss still believes it to be of extra-planetary origin). So the question is does one short mention on channel 2 news and 1 Haaretz article which mentions (but debunks) the incident convey notability? I'm leaning towards no, although my inclusiveist tendencies are leaning towards "maybe" if only because the Haaretz article calls it the most important story relating to UFO "events" in Israel. --Bachrach44 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. So there was a Haaretz article as claimed, but almost nothing else; and the author seems, we suppose, to have been trying to put up an "amusing" piece on Wikipedia about interplanetary cow-dung. I understand your inclusivist tendencies but respectfully suggest that one report of a silly story doesn't add up to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability, verifiability, undue, possible hoax, and think of the children. --No unique names 18:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be closed tomorrow anyway, but it appears we have a snowball here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2012 (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.