Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Events

Final Events

Final Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Wasn't sure whether to include this as Media and music or Fiction and the arts. Book about UFOs, article sourced to anything except WP:RS coverage of the book itself, review or any article in any mainstream outlet about this book in any way whatsoever. In fact, there's no WP:SIGCOV and this fails not only WP:GNG but WP:BOOKCRIT to boot. Whatever your view on the merits of its content, the book itself does not meet our notability criteria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Paranormal. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. There is coverage in The Chaos Conundrum: Essays on UFOs, Ghosts & Other High Strangeness in Our Non-Rational and Atemporal World published by Redstar Books, but The Chaos Conundrum likely is an unreliable source. Final Events does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  An alternative to deletion is to redirect to the book's author, Nick Redfern. The title "Final Events" may be too generic of a name. To address that, the article could be moved with no redirect to its full title, Final Events and the Secret Government Group on Demonic UFOs and the Afterlife, and then redirected to Nick Redfern.

  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

There is coverage in The Chaos Conundrum: Essays on UFOs, Ghosts & Other High Strangeness in Our Non-Rational and Atemporal World published by Restar Books, but The Chaos Conundrum likely is an unreliable source It's absolutely a RS; Gulyas is a scholar of conspiracy theories, the book is used extensively over at Roswell incident, a FA. Feoffer (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Accepting that is a RS, are there any other sources? Because if so, one is not enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh sure. Christian scholar and paranormal debunker Michael S. Heiser has an extensive review of Final Events. Scholar Karl Svozil in turn reviews both Redfern's book and Heiser's response to it. Crace has also published on Final Events's influence. Feoffer (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have access to the texts, can you add in sufficient cites to show it?

Being blunt, I'm sometimes baffled how (no offense to anyone, just something I've noticed) people will have sources that, when you read them, you could cite 3, 5, 10 unique sentences to one source, with zero padding (I mean, being very conservative). I've done that on a bunch of articles, where if you really read what's in every word/sentence, you can find all manner of citable info. What looked like RS was SIGCOV all along.

It was particularly notable on Harley Rutledge and Bruce Cathie. I even made it a very deliberate effort to avoid using two cites in one sentence, to be crystal clear (a few complex sentences with multiple parts aside).

Too many AfDs just have people drop sources and say, "See? SIGCOV." It does suck having to hustle and rebuild an article in a day or two. It's not as much fun. But if you can, whack it like that. I'm thinking I may start tending AfD graveyards instead. Find something worth resurrecting, source it to an absurd level, and leave it in AfC for a rubber stamp to immortality, erasing the AfD. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I've added multiple cites, and will continue to do so. Feoffer (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Striking my comment for now and changing to neutral. The Chaos Conundrum: Essays on UFOs, Ghosts & Other High Strangeness in Our Non-Rational and Atemporal World was published by Redstar Books, which I am unconvinced is a reliable publisher. However, the book's author Aaron John Gulyas, wrote Conspiracy Theories: The Roots, Themes and Propagation of Paranoid Political and Cultural Narratives and had it published by the reputable publisher McFarland & Company. The Chaos Conundrum seems to at a minimum meet Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, which says, "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Cunard (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 15:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, the page is now well-cited, improved since the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Randy Kryn Feoffer (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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.