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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network[edit]

Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

"The Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network (usually shortened to APEN) is an unknown group of investigators". Couldn't agree more, but the article does go on to reinforce this by having no inline sources and a couple of fringe books that no library I can find, has copies of. As far as I can tell the only person who ever talks about this group is Nick Redfern. Guy (help!) 09:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Obvious hoax. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Waskey, Andrew J. (2014). Levine, Timothy R. (ed.). UFOs. p. 908. ((cite encyclopedia)): |work= ignored (help) Mention, but not significant coverage. fiveby(zero) 11:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, yes, this is a fringe topic, and probably an invention of ufologists, but that doesn't mean it is not notable. I can't understand the noms claim that the sources are "fringe books that no library I can find, has copies of". According to Worldcat, Redfern's book is held in numerous libraries including,
  • Devon Library Services, UK
  • Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
  • Universitätsbibliothek Marburg, Germany
  • Friedensau Adventist University, Germany
  • Universität St. Gallen, Switzerland
  • American University of Malta
  • Portland Public Library, US
  • American University of Nigeria
  • Norwich University, Kreitzberg Library, US
  • Vanier College Library, Canada

There are many more, that is just a selection. Jenny Randles book does not seem to be so widely held, but nevertheless Worldcat is showing it held in many UK libraries including Plumstead, Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Aylesbury, University of Winchester, Birmingham, Worcester, Winchester, and the Channel Islands.

These are fringe authors and need to be used with caution, but the books come from reputable publishers. Redfern's book is published by Invisible Ink Press. Randles book is published under an imprint of Hachette. SpinningSpark 11:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my keep. On reflection, I did not pay enough attention to the quality of the sources and got sidetracked into the irrelevant issue raised by the nom of whether or not they were held in libraries. SpinningSpark 14:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In order for a fringe theory to be notable it needs to receive significant coverage from reliable independent sources, not just proponents of the theory. I'm just not seeing that level of coverage from sources outside of ufology circles. –dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a mention by Jacques Vallée, but agree with Dlthewave, not enough significant coverage for an article. Have tried to find enough for some content in the Berwyn article, but Lynn Picknett is the best source found, so probably a no. fiveby(zero) 14:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also looked in vain for some WP:FRIND source that could justify a sentence or two at Berwyn Mountain UFO incident or UFO conspiracy theory or some similar article. Aside from the too-brief/zero-context mention in Timothy R. Levine's book, there is nothing available. APEN has simply failed to gain notice outside the bubble of ufology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence whatsoever of notability, no inline sources (the best possible sources I could find were unreliable, being two pseudoscience woo books written by established fringe-pushers), and even the article itself mentions that the "organization" might be a hoax. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The last citable media mention dates to 14 years ago when the article was created, proving it has not had a lasting or notable impact on Ufology. Interesting coincidence: Saucer Smear publisher and prankster James W. Moseley also self-identified as "Supreme Commander." 5Q5|^✉ 13:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With that information, I'm tempted to suggest a very limited merge to Mosley's article. Is that reliably sourced? SpinningSpark 15:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just an ironic coincidence that Moseley used that title on the masthead of his newsletter Saucer Smear since the 1970s. There's nothing, even in fringe sources, that IDs suggests Moseley as the Supreme Commander of APEN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Spinningspark, there appear to be numerous experts on Moseley online that can be contacted, including jimmosely.com, to inquire if he ever admitted involvement in APEN or ever used the alias "J.T. Anderson" (Supreme Commander) in any of his writings or interviews. If that can be established, I agree that a merge to the Moseley article would be appropriate. So to anyone interested, I would save the article content and leave it an open investigation. 5Q5|^✉ 12:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per dlthewave Sgerbic (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2020 (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.