Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon Lake Incident
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
— User:MacGyverMagic, 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)