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. Aside from some reservations and a merge suggestion by Hrafn, nobody but the nominator is arguing for deletion. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic aliens[edit]

Nordic aliens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Reads more like "List of aliens claimed by people to have pale skin, blonde hair or other subjectively-interpreted Scandanavian features." Article looks to be a holdover from the bad old days of Wikipedia when well-intentioned UFO buffs were keen on building a number of niche articles based only on iffy UFOlogy sources and original research. The sources now cited are reliable, but the phrase "nordic types" or the word "nordic" is merely included among a laundry list of descriptions of aliens people claim to have seen. Other sources just mention aliens with long blonde hair. Or pale skin. There is no significant coverage of the concept found in reliable sources. Passing or trivial mentions of something do not justify a stand-alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ugh. I don't want to get involved with this article, because I know it will lead to lots of extra stress. But I'm also one of the few regular editors who will be willing to defend it. Anyway, there are other reliable sources that discuss the Nordic alien concept. This book was published by Duke University Press, and contains a bit of history on the concept (eg, George Adamski.) This one provides a bit of sociological analysis that can be included in the article. This book might be useful too, from what I've seen browsing through it at the library in the past. We also have books like this, which probably wouldn't be considered reliable for most purposes, but at least provide evidence that "Nordic aliens" is a widely understood concept in UFOlogy circles. Zagalejo^^^ 01:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't like them, any more than I like Nordic Death Metal music, but sources are provided with discuss them. BigJim707 (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - May be less common than the Little green men, Grey alien or Reptilians descriptions, but each commonly described type are notable enough for their own Article. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the sources already in the article fail to offer significant coverage, and the ones suggested here on the AfD to date appear to be mostly problematical. Battaglia gives a definition of Nordic ("a mixture of Nordic and 'Oriental'") that appears to contradict other, purely-Nordic, definitions, many of them are unclear as to how much coverage they offer, and the title The Big Book of UFOs gives me doubts as to how scholarly it is. Erich Goode's book appears to be the only unambiguously unproblematical source to date, and I don't know if that's enough on its own. I would suggest that some sort of showing as to depth of coverage, by working some of these sources into the article, may be needed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do any sources explicitly describe them as "purely" Nordic? In any case, I'm pretty sure there is more information out there; I'll have to go to a library within the next few days. I know from past experience that Google Books gives an erratic picture of what is available when it comes to UFO/paranormal stuff. I did find another potentially usable source on Amazon: The Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained, which has an entry on Nordics from pages 489-490. (If you have an Amazon account, you can preview it.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't say "purely Nordic", but frequently describe purely Nordic features: e.g. pale skin, blonde hair, blue eyes, that contains no admixture of Oriental features. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, Adamski claimed to meet Nordic Aliens...later "contactees" say they did too...and sociologists say they are probably idealizations of humans. Using all the RS we have gathered to date, the subject still can only generate about a paragraph and a half of material. My opinion is that this material would be better situated at Abduction phenomenon entities. Note that it's not the end of the world if aliens with insufficient notability are Redirects, e.g. how some entries at List of alleged extraterrestrial beings are treated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, to Abduction phenomenon entities (unless some better target is found). Material to date appears to amount mainly to a vague description and anecdotal reports of encounters, of questionable noteworthiness. Little in the way of substantive secondary analysis, and not enough to warrant an independent article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not crazy about that as a merge target, because Nordics are often associated with the contactee tradition, which generally doesn't have much to do with probes and implants and such. List of alleged extraterrestrial beings could be a better target, although that page needs to be retooled to get rid of the silly table and use more prose descriptions. But before we start talking about merges, give me a little time to get to the library so I can see what else I can find about Nordic aliens. I'm hoping to track down a couple of books within the next couple days. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a little bit more, but I still don't think I've exhausted the material that is out there. And as I said on the article talk page, Jerome Clark should count as a reliable source, since the American National Biography uses him as a source in at least one of their articles (on George Adamski). Zagalejo^^^ 03:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - although it is fairly hard to find reliable sources about it, it is definitely a notable subject within the field of ufology, and it has citations. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:FRINGE, and fits in well with WP:ODD. I can't see where to merge it into. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2011 (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.