Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Ufology (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was keep. - ulayiti (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Ufology

An anon user tagged the page with the wrong template (afd1 instead of afdx - because there was a previous nomination.) Im trying to fix this up - There has already been some discussion on afd which somehow managed to be put at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doubibou which Im moving here -- Astrokey44|talk 15:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete (There are many omissions, so much so that it is difficult to argue that it is an accurate history, rather a skewed history that seems to spend a lot of space offering a history that approximates what many Australian UFO researchers know but with some aspects few of us are familar with. The owner of the Wikipedia "Australian Ufology" entry is censoring efforts to correct and edit this skewed and incomplete history so it would be appropriate to highlight the questionable nature of the document and its owner attempt to white out a lot of history and contributions, seemingly in an effort to create a biased and some what flawed history of Australian Ufology.)

• • • Delete (Over the years there has been a concerted effort by some UFO researchers to present the real History of Australian Ufology. Independent researchers like Bill Chalker spent years sifting through military files collating Australias UFO History but is continually Deleted from this page. This site is a misrepresentation of the true History of Australian Ufology and should be deleted. User: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u continually disrupt & delete all and every additional information posted to this page. They omit and disregarded the efforts of many Australian ufologists and have kept reverting and posting their own version of Australian Ufology History. User: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u are trying to create a biased and distorted version of Australian UFO History and do so with the blessing of you Wiki voters. If this is what Wiki is all about then one has to wonder if the information on the rest of the Wiki server is verifiable and truly helpful information. AUFORN
      • See Above Discussion [1] Vufors 03:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment, This Anon ISP was revered on this very same page for like attacks. [2]Vufors 12:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete AUFORN researchers have apparently given up on Wikipedia and trying to add content on this disputed page as well as on Australian Ufology due to constant deletion, harrassment and disruption by Vufors and Auforn4u who are both related to IP 202.83.73.188. Both of these usernames misrepresent the two organisations concerned (VUFORS and AUFORN) and the information provided on either article at the moment is not vouched for by them. See Talk:AUFORN and User talk:Vufors for clarification. --Zeug 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This might be one for WP:RFC. The talk page on Australian Ufology redirects to the main contributor's talk page. It is a fairly poor quality article though I could see scope for an article of this sort. On the other hand, there are no other examples of localised Ufology. I know very little about the subject but could be tempted with a Merge vote. Also nominator should sign in. MLA 14:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Comment hmmm, it seems that this AfD has not been set up right. I looked into how to fix it and found that Australian Ufology has an AfD tag on the article but that the tag refers to an AfD that was concluded with No Consensus on 26 Jan 2006. Also the title is capitalised for Ufology which isn't in line with manual of style. MLA 14:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• It should be alright now. I tagged it with afdx instead of afd1 -- Astrokey44|talk 15:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: An anonymous user seems to have a personal vendetta against VUFORS and wants to wipe it off Wikipedia. However he doesn't seem to understand the difference between user pages (User talk:Vufors) and Wikipedia articles (Australian Ufology). He also doesn't understand how the AfD listing page works. I have blocked him for 48 hours. No vote about Australian Ufology. JIP | Talk 15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • JIP, Delete. The anonymous user is me Diane Harrrison and I do not hold a biasted vendette against VUFORS it is actually the other way around and I had no idea you couldn't nominate a talk page for deletion, but he should be deleted as VUFORS continually breaks Wiki policy. These guys VUFORS & AUFO4u continually delete anything and everything I've posted and other AUFORN UFO researchers have posted to this page. I've been continually deleted from the Australian Administration segment along with Bill Chalker & Robert Frola who have been contributing since the 70s & 80s and the excuse VUFORS gives, we are not pre 1981. If this is the case ACERN and many others listed are neither pre 1981. Do you see any reference which states you have to be pre 81 no does it stat this on this on the page no. So ask yourself who really is trying to post a biased side of history. Go back to the history of this page and you find I am correct. VUFORS like you is an additionalists, but VUFORS continually breaks Wiki policy with the blessing of you guys. You have people posting comments about our Australian UFO history that have no idea of our UFO History, yet some of you vote to keep a biased version of it. Diane Harrison.

• • • See Above Discussion [3] Vufors 03:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment some but not all of that is true. The talk page at Australian Ufology has been redirected to User:VUFORS talk page. At that talk page it appears that User:VUFORS is not prepared to see any discussion of the removal of that redirect. MLA 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Vufors's redirection of the talk page to his own user talk page, but while the redirect is in place, the user talk page can't be nominated for deletion, as user talk pages in general can't. Regardless of Vufors's conduct, the anonymous user acted wrong in inserting his "delete VUFORS" comment to entirely unrelated AfD discussions, even after I warned him. Nominating Australian Ufology for deletion is all OK. Nominating people's user or user talk pages is not. Vufors should be contacted about the redirection, and if he continues to ignore any discussion, there probably should be an RfC discussion. JIP | Talk 16:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• It might be hard to understand the difference when the article's talk page redirects to the user's talk page. (which is absolutely ridiculous by the way - I removed the redirect) -- Astrokey44|talk 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. This seems to be user dispute over content rather than a dispute over whether this topic is notable enough for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 19:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (move to Australian ufology) an extensive article on a matter of some interst and note. Worrying that it should even come near AfD. Rich Farmbrough. 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Citations & Ref. A 2nd AfD? Worrying- taged by a "Anon"?Vufors 00:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• why is that worrying? anonymous editors can nominate pages for deletion. this was the edit I was referring to -- Astrokey44|talk 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• "
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)". Capitalistroadster 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and encyclopedic subject. Some editors need to stop treating it like their personal possession though. Clean up in line with style and NPOV guidelines. --Canley 03:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article, delete some of the editors (or at least some of their behaviors). We should strongly disapprove of nominating for deletion a lengthy detailed article that simply contains or does not contain disputed content. A content dispute is not grounds for AfD unless the entire content of the article is bogus. Grow up or get out, people. alteripse 12:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Important & extensive. 202.83.73.188 22:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • • Maybe if the editor of this page: see (User talk:Vufors) talk, stopped deleting additional information posted by Australian UFO researchers, then maybe this page could become an unbiased version of Australian UFO History. I personally can not see this issue being sorted until User VUFORS stops reverting, omitting, and deleting. (User talk:Vufors) this is vandalism of an article. 202.94.83.23

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.