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. No sources have been provided to establish notability of this person. (This includes the source re-provided by User:Stalwart111 at the end of this discussion, which was already in the article and had been reviewed by the discussing editors here.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tomas (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)

Fails notability standards for biographies. Profiled by various ufologists, he remains essentially unknown outside of that parochial community and so no neutral nor reliable article can be written about him. jps (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) o16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning towards Keep. Nominator seems to acknowledge that he's notable within the circle of UFOologists and their followers. Whether someone is notable for a reputable field of study or a fringe field of inquiry seems irrelevant. He's an influential author within his area of "study". Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I created this article years ago (one of my first articles) as the result of a request at WP:RA (which I had been told was a good way to get started). I was conscious then that notability relied on commentary from people the subject probably new in person when he was alive. It is also true, though, that his book We Are Not The First has been cited fairly extensively in other books, some reliable publications, others self-published hogwash. It's niche notability (as the nominator suggests) but I'm inclined to think notability is there. Stalwart111 00:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a WP:FRINGE subject (ancient astronauts) and thus requires non-fringe sources. Are there any non-fringe reliable sources? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ancient astronauts" was one of his areas of study but he is also variously described as an "Atlantis expert" and modern UFO theorist/analyst. He is probably best known for his "ancient astronauts" theories (being the subject of a couple of his books) but a lot of his work related to more modern UFO sightings (thus his founding of the Australian Flying Saucer Bureau). Invariably, though, his theories were fringe theories and few "mainstream" sources would have responded to his claims. The majority of coverage (for him or his books) is from others who had an interest in his theories. Stalwart111 04:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no coverage outside of fringe sources per FRINGE and GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per nominator, and the question and reasoning by Green Cardamom. I was also unable to find coverage in reliable, non-fringe sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see reliable sources for this one. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there seems to be a fairly strong consensus that this subject doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. That's fair enough, but given the original request at WP:RA and the ten-or-so people who look at this each day, would anyone have a particular objection to a selective merge (a line or two) and a redirect to Australian ufology? Green Cardamom, Cullen328, and LibStar, your thoughts? Stalwart111 07:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to your proposal if and only if you can cite even one instance of coverage in a reliable, independent source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a sensible approach for the redirect, one reliable independent source. For inclusion in Australian ufology article sourcing is less stringent as there is leeway to use primary sources if required if only to simply verify he exists, in a list of people for example. However to merge content, that would probably require reliable independent sources (depending on the content). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'd only propose to include him in the list of keynote speakers for the 1965 Ballarat conference, the popularity of which seems to have led to him publishing his books. The best source would be Bill Chalker's archive of the The Australasian Ufologist Magazine. From what I can tell, that magazine is one of the few Tomas didn't play a role in publishing (so it is reasonably independent of him) though obviously Chalker met Tomas (and includes a note about talking to his wife). It's not great for establishing notability, admittedly, but I think it's probably okay for a half-line mention and a redirect. Like I said, I'll not argue for keeping the article but redirects are cheap and it would seem that for anyone looking for him, being directed to that article would be better than nothing. Stalwart111 23:22, 6 November 2013 (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.