Deletion of Falcon Lake Incident

Comment: Just because a lot of coverage is by UFO enthusiasts, doesn't mean the coverage doesn't meet . If said enthusiasts wrote about it (and not simply copied the existing material) it's reliable and independent. Besides, no matter what sources you draw from, if you dig deep enough, at some point all the information is going to be based of the eyewitness reports no matter how far it got. That applies to everything; not just UFOs. More importantly (for anyone who agrees with me on that), I also found coverage that is unrelated to UFOlogists. 1) http://science.howstuffworks.com/falcon-lake-incident.htm HowStuffWorks covered it. The site is maintained by an individual who does extensive research on everything he writes; anything not written by him is written by experts or people doing extensive research as much as he does. 2) There's coverage in the http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/unexplained/topics/725/ CBC.ca archives. 3) A Google search on "falcon lake UFO" suggests more potential sources exist and I haven't even looked for paper resources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The article says a man consumed some beer, then had a close encounter with a UFO which landed, and that it was investigated by the police. Many things make it into police reports which do not deserve encyclopedia entries. Lacking is significant coverage of this unverified claimed UFO encounter in multiple reliable and independent sources. Wikipedia is #NEWS, not that this really made the news to any significant extent. UFO fancier magazines do not constitute reliable sources, in my view. I see nothing here which requires merging into an article about the location
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)