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 abducted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Dome of the Rock UFO incident

[edit]

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

Article about an event that a) fails WP:NEVENTS and b) has been shown not to have occurred. Sources run afoul of WP:SENSATION. I'd also call it a violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER except that... well... to call it news... BenTels (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not notable, in accordance with the nominator's impeccable reasoning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I see no irony whatsoever in having a purported UFO incident occurring over a holy site. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I find it interesting and News Archive list from January 2011 to present has a number of good WP:RS stories on this, including CBS, MSNBC, Telegraph, The Sun, Washington Post, (some with two or three stories). I heard of it at the time and one of more notable sitings. If no one else beefs up article, I might. Also: Here's a story about a channel 10 Israel investigation showing it was a hoax. (I'm sure more searching will find better links to that and other similar sources.) CarolMooreDC 16:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this coverage is fine for wikinews, but it doesn't really indicate the topic is truly notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Videos posted on YouTube purporting to be evidence of a UFO incident are not an "incident." They are simply videos that have gotten attention in the press. These are not notable enough for their own article - but perhaps a summary can be added to List of Internet phenomena. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are either primary videos, or fail the "Slow News Day" caveat at WP:FRINGE. Even with more sources, I would question whether this particular UFO sighting merits a stand-alone article. At best, it might be mentioned in passing in one of the other, broader UFO related article... but the sourcing would have to be significantly improved even for that. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not of note for an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best it could be in a List of fake Youtube videos, but then that article might end up overloading the WP servers, it would get so big. In other words, this particular youtube video isn't notable. First Light (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this hoax has any enduring historical significance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete nonsense. There are endless examples of these things. Apparently UFOs appeared at the opening of the Olympics too [1] [2]. Paul B (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2012 (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.