421:. I was astonished to find out this article had been AfD'ed. This incident could probably be the most notorious UFO/alien-related event outside of the U.S and by far the most relevant in Brazil. Easy for me to say it as a Brazilian, of course, but the article kinda demonstrates that. It does have problems, of course, but that's what tags are for. Also, half the sources come from some of Brazil's largest news organizations (Globo, ISTOÉ), they're not just some "tabloids". The PT version has additional good sources, and a Google search would return even more of them, but I honestly won't even bother adding them unless more people start supporting the deletion, which seems unlikely.
476:
state. Of the 15 in-line citations, I found: two are likely reliable sources (citations 2 and 3); seven either can not be evaluated by me, have no content, or link to pages having nothing to do with the topic (citations 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15); six, or 40% of the total, are unquestionably unreliable, being written and sometimes published by established pro-fringe, pseudoscience pushers (citations 4, 7, 9. 11, 13, 14). I do not understand
Portuguese, and am thus unable to attempt rectification, but as it currently stands the elements of
503:
11 is just an article from an established newspaper saying that a statue of the ET has been adorned with a mask to campaign against corona, I don't see what could be possibly wrong with that. References 13 and 14 are from an UFO maganize, but they are merely noting that a documentary has been produced about the affair, I think that's fair game. Reference 12 is about this same documentary, and 15 about some Syfy tv show. This leaves us with references 4,7,9 as fringe sources, and 10 as inaccessible. All in all, it's a clear
598:. I'm from Brazil and can vouch for everything Victor Lopes has said. The "incident" is still culturally and historically significant within Brazil and Brazilian culture, and the historical coverage has always been at the level of mainstream media, not just "tabloids". The article would exist to report the repercussions of the event, whatever it was, and is as notable to Brazilian culture just as something like
643:. The military was deployed. This was an incident. It happened. A young Military Intelligence Officer died. It doesn't matter if it was a gas cloud or an alien, a man died and that should be enough not to dismiss it. Here is the Brazilian equivalent of a FOIA by Congress on details of the autopsy of Military Intelligence Officer Marco Eli Chereze. Link:
502:
This is complete bollocks, but it is notable bollocks, precisely the sort of bollocks that should be covered by
Knowledge. References 1,5,6, and 8 are from large Brazilian media companies, they are reliable sources (they do have a problem with rightwing bias, but that's not at stake here). Reference
552:
Well, I'm coming around to see that apparently this is a big deal in Brazil. The
Brazilian coverage is mostly of the tongue-in-cheek variety. That's too bad, because we can't build a neutral article on sources that don't bother with serious analysis or critique and just repeat claims taken at face
475:
I was impressed by the comments above that the page is "well-reported" and "he coverage in reliable sources is overwhelming." I am going to assume good faith here, and further assume that those comments might actually be true. Those comments do not, however, apply to this article in its current
533:, Kevin Randle, Roger Leir, Bret Lueder, "Redação Vigília", Mel Polidori), and citation 14 is an out-and-out UFO woo website. When the dead/content-free links are included (citations 12 and 15)...well, all in all, it's a clear Delete. I get it that some bollocks are notable - for example the
537:
insanity - and I am certainly willing to believe that this "event" should/could/might be worthy of inclusion on en-Wiki, but until this article is populated by more independent, reliable sources, it simply does not rise to encyclopedic status.
402:. In Brazil, the case is known as the "ET de Varginha", the case is a constant subject of stories on TV and on channels about ufulogy. The case is one of the most recognized in the world. So, I vote to keep this page on wikipedia.
553:
value. Google
Translate may be useful to weed out such sensational credulous sources from the article. Also the direct citations to fringe ufology books must go. One example of the moderately less sensational Brazilian coverage is
203:
644:
378:
template message {{expert needed}} at the top of the article and a corresponding section on the talk page describing what the deficiency is that needs improving before taking the drastic step of deletion.
627:
554:
370:. By coincidence over the past week I've been watching video reports, clips from media reports on this case and it is treated as a very famous case in the Spanish-speaking world. The
439:
This is a well-reported event in new age magazines as it is an encounter outside the scope of Area 51 and the US military. Hence, it has strong notability for this reason alone. --
307:
156:
197:
645:
https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra;jsessionid=0BFCE4A431F5E8B37BE625A1441B3FA9.proposicoesWebExterno2?codteor=1656251&filename=RIC+3515/2018
521:
I will take your word for it that citations 1, 5, 6 and 8 are reliable. That makes a total of six reliable sources out of fifteen. As for citations 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, per
347:
287:
610:, which also rightfully gets its own article). However, it is true that the current article has issues with citations, but this does not warrant its deletion. —
250:
however the event isn't a sighting of a UFO, it's a confusing mishmash of secondhand claims of people saying they saw aliens, and a supposed conspiracy/coverup.
626:
The case was heavily covered by
Brazilian media and is constantly revisited. The article needs to be rewriten with better sources, but deletion is unnecessary.
327:
267:
103:
374:
is long and has a lot of references. I only speak
English, however, so I can't vet the content. In my view at this time it would be better to just add an
88:
246:
story published in the Wall Street
Journal 25 years ago is not sufficient criteria for a stand alone article. I would say it might deserve mention at
129:
124:
133:
163:
556:. Note that it explicitly concludes that the claims are debunked and this is all a myth. Not sure why our article lead doesn't reflect this. -
116:
581:
per Victor Lopes and Tercer. Notable myths are still notable, Knowledge has a role here that will not be well-served by deletion.
631:
218:
529:
guideline) they are inappropriate and unreliable because they are written by confirmed, no-doubt-about-it, pro-fringe POV-pushers (
185:
662:
83:
76:
17:
247:
179:
97:
93:
681:
685:
666:
635:
618:
590:
565:
547:
516:
493:
467:
448:
429:
411:
392:
359:
339:
319:
299:
279:
259:
58:
603:
120:
175:
704:
40:
407:
225:
235:
543:
489:
463:
677:
658:
700:
243:
112:
64:
36:
650:
607:
599:
561:
315:
295:
275:
255:
654:
444:
211:
191:
403:
615:
586:
539:
485:
458:
422:
355:
335:
72:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
699:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
526:
512:
477:
239:
557:
522:
481:
311:
291:
271:
251:
375:
242:
sources like Roger Leir, Kevin Randle, ufo magazines, Brazilian tabloids, etc. A single
440:
389:
611:
582:
534:
351:
331:
150:
508:
606:, and arguably among the most famous such "incidents" in Brazil (together with
54:
381:
238:. No enduring historical significance. Largely obscure, except for
371:
695:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
484:, to name only two, are what I consider to be overwhelming.
146:
142:
138:
210:
456:— The coverage in reliable sources is overwhelming.
308:
list of
Popular culture-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
707:). No further edits should be made to this page.
647:(Yes it's in Portuguese, use google translator)
346:Note: This discussion has been included in the
326:Note: This discussion has been included in the
306:Note: This discussion has been included in the
286:Note: This discussion has been included in the
266:Note: This discussion has been included in the
348:list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions
288:list of Aviation-related deletion discussions
224:
8:
104:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
328:list of Events-related deletion discussions
268:list of Brazil-related deletion discussions
648:
345:
325:
305:
285:
265:
7:
628:2804:431:C7C0:66B:4C9:3F20:192D:F07D
24:
89:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
686:14:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
667:08:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
636:06:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
619:21:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
591:17:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
566:18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
548:17:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
517:16:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
494:15:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
468:05:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
449:12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
430:21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
412:17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
393:12:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
360:17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
340:17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
320:17:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
300:17:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
280:17:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
260:17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
248:List of reported UFO sightings
59:21:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
1:
79:(AfD)? Read these primers!
724:
604:Rendlesham Forest incident
525:(and actually the entire
697:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
113:Varginha UFO incident
77:Articles for deletion
65:Varginha UFO incident
600:Roswell UFO incident
372:Portuguese article
672:The military was
669:
653:comment added by
362:
342:
322:
302:
282:
94:Guide to deletion
84:How to contribute
715:
427:
391:
386:
236:WP:EVENTCRITERIA
229:
228:
214:
166:
154:
136:
74:
34:
723:
722:
718:
717:
716:
714:
713:
712:
711:
705:deletion review
423:
382:
380:
171:
162:
127:
111:
108:
71:
68:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
721:
719:
710:
709:
691:
690:
689:
688:
638:
621:
608:Operação Prato
593:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
497:
496:
470:
451:
433:
432:
415:
414:
396:
395:
364:
363:
343:
323:
303:
283:
244:WP:SENSATIONAL
232:
231:
168:
107:
106:
101:
91:
86:
69:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
720:
708:
706:
702:
698:
693:
692:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
670:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
646:
642:
639:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
620:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
576:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
550:
549:
545:
541:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
501:
500:
499:
498:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
474:
471:
469:
465:
461:
460:
455:
452:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
434:
431:
428:
426:
420:
417:
416:
413:
409:
405:
404:Raonyphillips
401:
398:
397:
394:
390:
387:
385:
377:
376:Expert needed
373:
369:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
264:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:Find sources:
169:
165:
161:
158:
152:
148:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
105:
102:
99:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
81:
80:
78:
73:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
696:
694:
673:
649:— Preceding
640:
623:
595:
578:
540:JoJo Anthrax
535:Paul is dead
530:
504:
486:JoJo Anthrax
472:
459:Celestina007
457:
453:
436:
425:Victor Lopes
424:
418:
399:
383:
367:
233:
221:
215:
207:
200:
194:
188:
182:
172:
159:
70:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
641:Strong Keep
624:Strong keep
596:Strong keep
579:Strong keep
419:Strong keep
198:free images
676:deployed.
558:LuckyLouie
312:Lightburst
292:Lightburst
272:Lightburst
252:LuckyLouie
701:talk page
655:Ruda Luna
527:WP:FRINGE
478:WP:FRINGE
441:Whiteguru
352:• Gene93k
332:• Gene93k
240:WP:FRINGE
37:talk page
703:or in a
663:contribs
651:unsigned
523:WP:FRIND
482:WP:FRIND
157:View log
98:glossary
39:or in a
612:LucasVB
583:Feoffer
204:WP refs
192:scholar
130:protect
125:history
75:New to
509:Tercer
473:Delete
234:Fails
176:Google
134:delete
219:JSTOR
180:books
164:Stats
151:views
143:watch
139:links
16:<
682:talk
659:talk
632:talk
616:Talk
587:talk
562:talk
544:talk
531:i.e.
513:talk
505:Keep
490:talk
480:and
464:talk
454:Keep
445:talk
437:Keep
408:talk
400:Keep
368:Keep
356:talk
336:talk
316:talk
296:talk
276:talk
256:talk
212:FENS
186:news
147:logs
121:talk
117:edit
55:Tone
50:keep
678:jps
674:not
602:or
410:)
384:5Q5
226:TWL
155:– (
684:)
665:)
661:•
634:)
614:|
589:)
564:)
546:)
515:)
507:.
492:)
466:)
447:)
358:)
350:.
338:)
330:.
318:)
310:.
298:)
290:.
278:)
270:.
258:)
206:)
149:|
145:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
52:.
680:(
657:(
630:(
585:(
560:(
542:(
511:(
488:(
462:(
443:(
406:(
388:|
354:(
334:(
314:(
294:(
274:(
254:(
230:)
222:·
216:·
208:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
178:(
170:(
167:)
160:·
153:)
115:(
100:)
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.