Ellie Ga – endorse, close, userfy. Everybody seems to agree that the original close was fine, but new sources have come to light since then. I'm going to move this to User:Brainy_J/Ellie Ga so he can work on it as he requested. Once the new sources have been added, it can be moved back to main article space (ask any admin for assistance, if needed) – -- RoySmith(talk)13:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
She seems to have garnered some notability since the deletion in late 2009, and I'll edit the article further once it's restored to incorporate these sources:
Nothing wrong with the close admin did the right thing, but per his request due to the recency of the discussion I am requesting a DRV. New reliable sources have been found and added to the article.
This is a widespread, everlasting, and recurring event in space exploration. The AfD essentially snowball into a delete because it is apparent that no one did any research. Here is the condition of the article during the two AfDs, AfD 2, AfD 1.
Endorse close. This can be covered in the main article on UFO sightings, it's just the same crap from a different pilot's chair. The sources don't really establish notability any more than they did last time round - a "Myth: Neil Armstrong saw a UFO; Fact: No he didn't" in long article, for example, is really stretching. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can we say this? I have attempted to give as much due weight as possible. Even as a hoax the coverage is considered notable. I noted that officially the Armstrong report is not true, perhaps we can move it to the list section. I added over 8 sources not included in the prior debate. The sources have given significant weight on sightings in outer space. I feel a separate article is necessary. Valoemtalkcontrib15:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The decision on whether to make a separate article is a value judgement, and the new sources might affect it. Whether they do should be discussed at AfD, not here. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - I dunno about the venue. I "think" the proper procedure would be to request "somewhere" (here is just as good as any). As for the article itself, if the information is worthy to be in an article, it doesn't matter if it is on a standalone page or merged to some other page per WP:SS. This is an easy split from some other related article as noted by JzG. And the references I looked at appeared to give coverage, including at least one first person account. - jc3719:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow restoration - certainly sources have been presented here that invalidate all the deletion arguments made in the XfDs (except, perhaps, the rampant "I don't like it's" that were silly to begin with). It could be relisted if someone thinks it should be deleted, though that appears to be a pretty silly thing to think; relisting for process's sake is a waste of everyone's time. WilyD09:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
