UFO sightings in Thailand: I see nothing worth saving.  There are essentially no reliable sources on which to base this article.  jps ( talk ) 15:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Thailand .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:COAT is not a valid reason for deletion.   It's not a policy nor a guideline; it's just an essay.   Even if it were, WP:COAT says " Articles about one thing shouldn't be loaded up with unrelated things to make a point. "  In other words, it says that if an article has cruft, then remove the cruft.   It doesn't say to delete an article except " In extreme cases , when notability is borderline ".   I don't think any reasonable person can possibly think that in nation of 70 million , there aren't more than enough reliable sources to establish notability , albeit in a foreign language.   Anyway, it only took me a few minutes to find these sources in English.  Reliable Sources to prove notability CNN - The UFO seekers flocking to a remote Thai hilltop in search of Buddhist aliens International Business Times - Glowing UFO disc spotted in Bangkok, eyewitness says alleged alien ship flew higher than clouds Bangkok Post - A crash course in Thailand's UFO obsession Vice - Meet The Thai UFO Group Convinced That Aliens Will Save Us From Armageddon Hindustan Times - Alien enthusiasts flock to see huge Buddha statue in Thailand.  Here’s why Buddhist Door Global - Buddhist UFO Hunters Seek Contact on a Mountain in Thailand I'm sure there are way more in Thai .   The solution here is improve the article, not delete it.  A Quest For Knowledge ( talk ) 17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of the sources you attest to wanting to use look to be violation of WP:SENSATION to me.  If I removed the coat, there would be no article and rather than doing the undercover blanking thing, I thought we'd have a conversation.  So it seems that your argument is that we should keep the article because you think reliable sources exist, but you haven't demonstrated that this is the case.  jps ( talk ) 18:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CNN , International Business Times , Bangkok Post , Vice are all legitimate news sources.  None of those qualify as WP:SENSATION.   You claim that there are no reliable sources but that claim has been debunked.   In any case, WP:COAT is still not a valid reason for deletion.   So, you haven't even provided a legitimate reason to delete.   Perhaps you would be willing to withdraw the nomination until you come up with a valid reason to delete it?  A Quest For Knowledge ( talk ) 18:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mainstream sources that fall down credulous rabbit holes are exactly what the main concern of WP:SENSATION is about.  If you don't understand that, it just makes WP:CIR a question to consider.  jps ( talk ) 19:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, apparently I'm competent enough to know that the WP:COAT essay isn't a valid reason for deletion.  A Quest For Knowledge ( talk ) 19:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia works based on a consensus model.  You can WP:Wikilawyer all you want, but you'll find plenty of instances where articles were deleted due to WP:COAT .  Just because you don't think WP:COAT is a valid reason for deletion doesn't mean that it automatically isn't.  WP:CIR indeed.  jps ( talk ) 19:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What if I deleted the content cited to the YouTube videos?   Would that help alleviate your concerns?  A Quest For Knowledge ( talk ) 12:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per lack of reliable sources.  The sourcing on this article is terrible.  It was also created by a sock-puppet evading his block [18] .  This terrible sourced article has no place on Wikipedia.  We need reliably sourced articles.  Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 17:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - news sources should not be considered WP:RS per WP:SENSATION , if there's a single media outlet that doesn't fall foul under that policy with respect to UFOs and other WP:FRINGE theories I've yet to hear of it.  - car chasm ( talk ) 19:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] News sources very much are considered WP:RS , I'm not sure where you could possibly be getting the idea aren't.  I can vouchsafe that both Bangkok Post and CNN very much are RS in the scope of WP:RS .  Boynamedsue ( talk ) 13:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment The sourcing cited at the top of this page is all good, so they would stand as good sources for content in the article.  However, they do not relate to the overall topic of UFO sightings in Thailand, just to specific incidents, and so it is far from clear if they support the existence of the page.  I am sure that sources exist which do this, but it would be down to the proponents of retaining the article to prove this.  Boynamedsue ( talk ) 13:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I don't see how any of the news sources here constitute tabloid reporting, as they all employ a documentary approach reporting the existence of these groups of believers rather than taking their claims at face value.  Those arguing WP:SENSATIONAL should re-read what it actually says.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 05:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely this, it is total misapplication of the policy. The sources are absolutely fine to document what people CLAIM to have seen. -- Boynamedsue ( talk ) 06:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Documentary approach" does not work when your "documentary" is of the Ripley's Believe It Or Not variety.  When the subject turns to this sort of subject, it seems that author's lose their heads and editors look the other way when outlandish claims are reported.  If it was just a matter of tracking the existence of groups of believers, it would be one thing.  But this is instead taking these believers at their word or, at the very least, providing zero context or analysis for their beliefs which does the reader no service.  Imagine articles on Flat Earth conventions which failed to mention that the claims are poorly considered.  That's what we have in these sources.  jps ( talk ) 23:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this is a keep , though the current Thai references are all junk and the article (like thousands of others) needs serious improvement.  I had concerns that the references were relating only to individual incidents, but there's a Wall Street Journal article on the topic in general.  I have also found a scholarly source, from the Journal of Tourism Futures which has significant coverage of the contribution of UFO belief to Thai tourism.  I am puzzled at some of the arguments on this page, which seem to be arguing that, as belief in alien visitors is fringe, any source mentioning people who claim to see UFOs is covered by WP:SENSATION .  It is worrying that users exist who are both experienced enough to find a deletion discussion and capable of such a massive misinterpretation of our rules.  -- Boynamedsue ( talk ) 07:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is frankly ridiculous. Tercer ( talk ) 13:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is probably better to add your reasoning here, given WP:NOTAVOTE . What "it" is, and the grounds on which you find it "ridiculous" would give your comment more weight. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There could in principle be a decent article with this title, but the text as it stands is in the blow it up and start over regime. The references are junk, and even a casual search finds copyvio (e.g., dozens of policemen and rangers rushed... ). XOR'easter ( talk ) 14:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for lack of reliable sourcing and reliance on sensational coverage. Carless editing that uses copyvios. Also, pretty much a WP:COATRACK . Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate collections of information. --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 20:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or find a suitable merge target for valuable content.  WP:COATRACK combined with WP:SENSATION certainly constitute a valid reason for deletion.  Regarding the arguments about the value of essays, then the oft-invoked WP:ATA doesn't mention these as arguments to avoid either.  ~ Anachronist ( talk ) 16:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The references are indeed junk.  Google translate shows reference #1 is an internet forum posting.  #2 is a Youtube video from someone who says they believe in aliens.  #3 and #4 are also Youtube videos that are apparently unavailable.  The Thai "news" links are indeed WP:SENSATIONAL clickbait and not serious journalism of the kind we'd require for such an article.  - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 20:11, 20 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete