| Revision as of 17:09, 5 May 2007 editHagermanBot (talk | contribs)95,722 editsm Totnesmartin didn't sign: "→[]: keep - this was once a popular subject"← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:14, 5 May 2007 edit undoSophie means wisdom (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,822 edits →[]: sign - sorryNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *'''Keep''' Another notable idiocy, no less notable than the others. The best source of information seems to be the website http://aliens.monstrous.com/nordics.htm which I located in a earlier version. But otherwise the present state of the article seems reasonable. . ''']''' 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Another notable idiocy, no less notable than the others. The best source of information seems to be the website http://aliens.monstrous.com/nordics.htm which I located in a earlier version. But otherwise the present state of the article seems reasonable. . ''']''' 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' It is a notable concept within the field of ]. Although the similarities between this and ] may be a concern. They are very similar concepts, aren't they? ] ] 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' It is a notable concept within the field of ]. Although the similarities between this and ] may be a concern. They are very similar concepts, aren't they? ] ] 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' this was the main subject of several books, but interest fell away long before the internet was even dreamed of. All it needs is a proper writeup. It doesn't matter if there are Nordic Aliens or not, just that the subject is notable and properly referenced. |
*'''Keep''' this was the main subject of several books, but interest fell away long before the internet was even dreamed of. All it needs is a proper writeup. It doesn't matter if there are Nordic Aliens or not, just that the subject is notable and properly referenced. ] 17:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:14, 5 May 2007
Nordic aliens
- Nordic aliens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This isn't notable, and isn't verifiable. The source used only mentions the "aliens" in passing. Philosophus 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I read the one "source" and agree with nom. Perhaps this could go in an article about the guy who came up with this, but certainly no proof it's notable enough for its own article. Someguy1221 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Pretty notable alien "subtype" in ufology. Artw 05:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... looks like the article has been pretty heavily trimmed in the recent past. Artw 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently, same people believe that some kind of little green men are in fact not green but look like Nordic people, e.g. ; whether such aliens exist is irrelevant, as the article is about the belief, not the aliens. The article has two references, so I'd say we should keep it. Tizio 11:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. But can you find a reliable and notable source explaining this? The site you linked to discusses these actually goes to the length of discussing details of their physiology and their homeworlds. Someguy1221 11:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I provided the link as an example, not a reference (there are a lot of web pages like this around). These links are the first I could find from a skeptic point of view. They somehow prove that someone who is not an ufologist reported the existence of this belief. Tizio 11:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this article has citation, is a paranormal article, and has the potential to grow (:O) -Nima Baghaei 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this looks like a valid stub. As long as it continues to follow reasonable demands for paranormal subjects (admittedly, I don't know them), it can grow, with sources - it already has some. Nihiltres 16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep an important alien sub-group from before the rise of the greys. It does need expanding though. (Emperor 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC))
- Keep I've been a fan of ufology (which I consider akin to mythology, urban legends, etc...) since I was a kid. I've known of this particular alien species for a long time due to television documentaries, so I know the belief in them does exist and wasn't simply created by some Wikipedian user. As noted above, this is about the belief of the aliens existence and not the aliens themselves and the Washington Post reference along with the further reading book and links provided by Tizio seem sufficient enough. Poeticcontribs 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Also, I would like to note that the article was severely trimmed, as mentioned by Artw, just a day before being put up as AfD. This has caused the article to become a stub. I feel Wikipedians should have proper time to evaluate the trimming, look through the sources of the trimmed material (to ensure whether or not the trimming was needed), and have time to add new referenced material to make up for the trimming before any decision can be made in terms of deletion. Poeticcontribs 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Another notable idiocy, no less notable than the others. The best source of information seems to be the website http://aliens.monstrous.com/nordics.htm which I located in a earlier version. But otherwise the present state of the article seems reasonable. . DGG 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is a notable concept within the field of ufology. Although the similarities between this and Space Brothers may be a concern. They are very similar concepts, aren't they? hombre de haha 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this was the main subject of several books, but interest fell away long before the internet was even dreamed of. All it needs is a proper writeup. It doesn't matter if there are Nordic Aliens or not, just that the subject is notable and properly referenced. Totnesmartin 17:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)