Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast Walker (second 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has been over a month. The article has not improved. It is still one massive quote, with the rest being heavily based on another web page. It still doesn't satisfactorily meet WP:V, as there are no credible sources given (the only semi-credible source is the Discovery channel documentary, but their criteria for inclusion is incredibly lax nowadays). All sources that can be found reference the Discovery channel documentary. It violates WP:V for those reasons, though it may also fail to establish notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the first nomination, which ended in No Consensus

• As it currently stands there is not enough about this published anywhere reputable to possible satisfy WP:V. Mentioning something once in a Discovery documentary about UFOs is not quite good enough for me, if there is nothing else on this available. If everything dubious and unverifiable was removed, it would be a stub of an entry ("Fast Walker is the name given to an object by UFO watchers which they claim to be travelling at high speed towards Earth, and the nature of which to this day has remained unidentified. The UFO theorists claim that the object was detected in 1984 by a U.S. Defense satellite used to normally detect military threats heading towards the U.S.A, but unfortunately we have no way of verifying this claim at all. In fact, this entire article is based on one fringe website which itself looks like a second-hand account of a short segment of a Discovery episode on UFOs, taken out of context.") The entire "mystery" of it exists because there is a complete dearth of knowledge available, which I think is a good sign that it is not notable or verfiable enough for WP. Delete, or stub-ify. --Fastfission 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One other comment: I can't conceive of a way of writing this in a NPOV style without doing original research, owing to the lack of material on it available. I think that's a sure sign that it can't pass WP:V. --Fastfission 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep None the less, if verifiable, it would be important, verify & then stub-ify then Allow for organic expansion -- Librarianofages 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's been more than a month without verification. This despite another AfD, and despite much Googling. I would try to keep it if it was verified first. Non-verified material with this low a chance of ever being verified can't be kept lying around, by The Policy on WP:V. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A web search shows that Fast Walker is notable in UFO circles. --Ezeu 01:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how? "fast walker" ufo gains 740 results. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lacking any form of reliable source. If you want it kept, _add_ reliable references to it. --Christopher Thomas 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - no reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails verifiability. Needs some actual sources. - Hahnchen 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless this is very well sourced before the end of this AfD. No prejudice against recreation of a well-sourced article later, but as it is this is conspiracycruft. ~ trialsanderrors 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources. And we shouldn't let this article become the reliable source in itself. RE 06:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice per trialsanderrors. Arker 07:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per trialsanderrors/RE. -- GWO
• Delete as unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 11:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only change since the last AfD was a single spelling correction. Literally everything said last time thus still applies -- except that while half the "keep" votes last time were along the lines of "keep if expanded", or "keep, but needs work", it has not been expanded and no work has been done. — Haeleth Talk 13:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; see WP:RS. Article asserts that only one satellite detected the event; consequently, no confirmation exists that it even occurred. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not verifiable, and has a pro-alien POV (sounds a bit strange, but true). Moreschi 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak keep A fascinating story; unfortunately, the only good references I've been able to find are from "unexplained mysteries" types of sites and whatnot. I found this old copy of an Omni article, a magazine I loved as a kid though now I'm not sure how reliable of a source it would be considered. However, I did a Google search on "site:gov fastwalker" and found an official-looking Word document with the following quote:

1. How do we integrate Hotwalker, Jaywalker, Fastwalker, Skywalker worldwide test range monitoring, and space infrastructure attack characterization capabilities?

2. How do we perform IR multi-stage correlation, sensor cross-cueing in the Space Surveillance Network, and multi-source fusion of space tracks using IR and radar?

I also found this pdf document that mentions the same terms in a similar context. This suggests that "fastwalker" is indeed a term used in military space surveillance, and perhaps not invented by UFO buffs. However, for the article to qualify as a "keep," I think we'd have to remove the unverified account of the UFO incident (or at the very least mention that the sources are dubious). Unfortunately, that wouldn't leave much of an article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, right, it would pretty much just leave a dicdef or "technical manual" style page. I already said my concerns with the Omni article in the other thread: Omni got to the point where they were putting in various crazed theories every month without much in the way of editorial review or skepticism. This one seems fairly minor and not to have gained the public eye, based on the low number of Google hits (above). Doesn't count as a Reliable Source either. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate, Delete as per nom and above Bwithh 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unverifiable conspiracycruft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 15:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obscure doesnt mean delete. Its a signifigant space event if not a very rare and pecuiliar equipment abnormality.Patcat88 04:14, 17 July 2006 (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.