Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua LeBlanc

Joshua LeBlanc

Joshua LeBlanc (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)

Information on the subject of this article is only sustainable due to mention of his death within the context of the Missing scientists conspiracy theory, without which he would not have crested WP:N.

Much of the current sourcing is proscribed (including WP:UFONATION — classified generally unreliable for any topic that intersects UFOs — WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE, WP:LADBIBLE, etc.), or of dubious quality (e.g. WP:NEWSWEEK). The WP:RS present mention the subject only obliquely within the context of the conspiracy theory.

Delete under the WP:GNG. I'm also fine with redirect to Missing scientists conspiracy theory as a less preferred alternative. Oppose Merge as there is nothing here to merge that isn't already there. Chetsford (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Engineering, Spaceflight, Alabama, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose — I agree with many of your points as opportunities for improving the article, but my sense is that WP:GNG is met on the basis of widespread coverage of his death. Biographical information is attested across multiple sources, including a local outlet (Montgomery Advisor) and larger national outlets (CNN, USA Today), and government officials have commented on the case. While notability stems from media coverage of his death rather than standalone accomplishments (unlike Nuno Loureiro or Carl Grillmair), that is a valid basis for notability.

On sourcing: I've removed the UNILAD Tech source per WP:LADBIBLE (did not realize they were the same org, good catch!) and added sources from CNN, AL, and USA Today. The Fox and NewsNation sources do not strike me as unreliable insofar as they report findings from law enforcement and forensic agencies and include statements from the family of the deceased, which do not relate to the proscribed topics and match reporting in known reliable sources.

Regarding redirect/merge alternative: I'm not convinced that detailed biographical information on LeBlanc belongs in Missing scientists conspiracy theory (kudos for writing that article!), as the latter concerns the development and spread of the conspiracy theory itself.

Given the spike in attention to LeBlanc, Monica Reza, and others, standalone articles with varied, reliable secondary sources are of interest to the public and should stand. Sources can be further improved as coverage expands. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"The Fox " The community has been very clear on the topic of Fox News and science and 50% of the title of this article is literally "scientists". "NewsNation sources do not strike me as unreliable" The community was completely unambiguous that NewsNation is a credulous outfit on the subject of flying saucers and should not be used in reference to UFOs or any topic that is remotely adjacent. This is an article about a UFO conspiracy theory.

"Sources can be further improved as coverage expands."" We don't typically keep non-notable subjects hoping that, in the future, enough sources will cover them they'll become notable. Chetsford (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This is an article about an engineer. I've removed the NewsNation source (cited once) and kept the bulk of material corroborated by local and national news outlets surrounding the accident. CNN, USA Today, and the Montgomery Advisor are not reporting on flying saucers, they are reporting on the circumstances of a man's death and the official response to it. That these outlets were prompted to cover the story by a wave of misplaced public concern (however that wave originated) does not make their reporting unreliable, any more than a tabloid's early interest in a murder case discredits the eventual court record.

The nomination conflates the origin of public interest with the nature of subsequent coverage. Yes, attention to missing scientists was initially amplified by fringe UFO communities, but that is a description of how interest spread, not a permanent taint on every downstream source. The same dynamic applies to countless topics that begin in fringe spaces and graduate to legitimate public scrutiny, as afforded when members of Congress call for an investigation, or the White House announce a probe, even if from apophenia. None of the sourcing for this article concerns UFOs, but instead dates to and results from official scrutiny.

Thank you for flagging that WP:UFONATION and WP:LADBIBLE applied to earlier sourcing; those have been removed, and the article is improved as a result. Note that reliability designations tied to subject matter do not automatically apply to any media that reports on the scientists (i.e. WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE), especially when reporting matches known reliable sources. It would require deeming coverage by CNN and USA Today of a government investigation unreliable by association, which would be unreasonable.

The subject meets WP:GNG on the basis of mainstream, varied, independent coverage alone. The fringe origin of interest is context rather than contamination. Please boldly edit if you see the need for further changes! RabidTuberculosis (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose — There are numerous sources on his death. If there are any unreliable sources, they can be improved on. Guz13 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a developing issue and deletion doesn't make it any easier for people to obtain correct information. ~2026-29267-00 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is crying out for a source analysis. Also can the keep side address BLP1E please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to WP:BLP1E, which I did not realize also applies to people who have recently died. Since notability hinges on reporting on his death (one event) rather than the subject's scientific contributions, the article likely meets the criteria for deletion. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's nice to see everyone explain their positions. Conceivably this could close now, but without a little more participation, giving it another week seems prudent.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Please don't make us look silly: see WP:NABOBS. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2026 (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.