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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtar Galactic Command[edit]

Despite Robert Ham's assertions about logic, either this page is about something that exists or it isn't. The page claims that the AGC is an extraterrestrial organisation, whose existence is asserted by certain people. To make such a claim, it must be backed up with verifiable evidence from reliable sources - and with the exception with the article on Vrillon, which is a noted and documented (although possible hoax) event, this article relies on some fairly shakey sources, none of which seem to pass Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source. Perhaps sources exist, but I'm not convinced that any of the sources on here are anything other than self-published and/or unreliable. Perhaps a merge to Vrillon would be the best solution? I thought it would be worth offering it up for discussion in any case. Richard Hock (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not really sure what you think is wrong with this article. It's backed up by a number of sources that are apparently independent of each other. I see no reason to believe that these sources don't back up the claim made by the article (which is that some so-called "contactees" assert that this organization exists, not that the organization actually exists as you appear to interpret it). At least some of the sources quoted are not self-published, and assuming the information in the article is correct, most of the others aren't either. Due to their fringe bias, some of the sources may be dubious from the perspective of validating the actual existence of this organization, but they are only being used for the purposes of verifying what contactees claim, which I see no reason to believe they are not reliable for. The other sources are reliable with respect to the TV interruption. If there's to be a merge, I'd suggest the other way around would be more reasonable: as the Ashtar Command idea predates the "Vrillon" incident, which was clearly inspired by the preexisting ideas about this organization, merging it here is more appropriate. JulesH (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verifiability due to a lack of reliable and independent sources. This makes a major assertion of truth that extraterrestrials are in contact with us earthlings, and that if someone introduced spurious material into a TV transmission, and claimed to be extraterrestrial, that is the best explanation, rather than a hacker at work. Other sources are ufo fancier magazines, a "channeler" and "News of the World," which is known for stories of the "Bigfoot is Elvis's son" variety. It is also of questionable notability. Edison (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No it doesn't; it asserts that certain people claim this. This claim is much more easily verified, by reference to the people who do in fact claim it. JulesH (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does not state that certain people make a fringe claim. It says the claim is true. "Ashtar Galactic Command (or Ashtar Command) is an extraterrestrial organization whose existence and purpose are asserted by contactees, New Age believers and channellers, including American Ufologist George Van Tassel. The Command consists of several named beings with distinctly defined roles." This is like stating "Jesus is the Son of God," which religious article avoid. The article asserts the truth of a fringe belief based on true believer sources. There is also no evidence that the "movement" is large or notable. Edison (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like saying "Jesus is the Son of God, according to Christians," which is accurate if poorly phrased. Anyway, this isn't worth arguing over... I'll go and clear up the article so that it's less ambiguous. JulesH (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Hoax or not, the fact is that independent sources assert the notability of the subject. Only four sources from Google Books, but how many mainstream media are going to cover an "extraterrestrial organization"? --Jmundo (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a serious rewrite to remove the implication that it is in any way true, or that the Command is extraterrestrial, but it does cite 3 newspapers, which easily covers both the existence of the believe and notable reach of the idea. Long live ashtartology. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:36, 10 January 2009 (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.