Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Courcelles 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyed Kids

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Black Eyed Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In spite of two previous AFDs (the article was deleted after the 2nd AFD), this article still has only one reliable source, has not been rewritten to include new reliable sources, and I can find nothing on google or google scholar except Wiki mirrors, blogs and unreliable sources. No idea why the article was recreated with no reliable sources after the 2nd AFD; it should have been speedied as recreation of deleted material; instead it was featured on DYK. Two non-reliable sources were added to this article at DYK by the DYK reviewer who passed the hook, and the article was run on the mainpage in spite of me notifying DYK of the problem. "Sacramento Press" is a volunteer community contributor site with a misleading name, and there is nothing on this site to establish that it meets WP:V. Past AFDs argue that there is one article at about.com, but most about.com articles do not meet reliability; anyone can sign up to write for about.com, some of their writers are qualified experts, while others are "housewives" writing about pet topics (this was reviewed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard long ago). Two AFDs have not resulted in any reliable sources being added to this article in four years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys want to check out the previous version of the article an compare it to the one I made you can do so [here and here. Hope that helps PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these kids feature in many paranormal films, so ther notability should not be in question. They are characters, and may also exist in the real world. Although I have no sources at this time, they do, as I said above, appear in movies, so at least that should be notable, as minor characters. But that's just my opinion. CybergothiChé word to your mother 11:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a guy tells an internet ghost story and... that's about it. No in depth coverage of this meme in any high quality sources... anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability as shown in coverage by reliable sources. Possible candidate for speedy deletion under WP:G4, but as it's been taken to AFD we may as well let it be discussed here instead. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I am a little confused how this got to this point, although the article needs serious work. first, it should be covered under Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Now, given the notability criteria there, the following sources can be added [1] - an investigative website, [2], [3] - a fringe news site, [4] - more news, [5] - brief tidbit here, [6]- excerpt from a book covering the subject, [7], [8], [9], [10] - well written article describing possible "mainstream" theories on their existance. How many more do you want? This subject is covered on every paranormal site that I have come across. Remember, the policy states "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.". I hope this helps. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see one single source in the article, or in the links provided just above, that meets WP:RS (a book that is "published" does not automatically make it a reliable source). If this were truly notable, it would have been covered by reliable sources. For those reasons, it fails WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --John (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realize that at this point the nom statement no longer applies as other RSes have been found? Hobit (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still not seeing a Reliable Source in the article or in any of the websites linked here. Even if RS was stretched to include "Weird U.S. The ODDyssey Continues"[11] as a borderline RS for this subject, one page out of three hundred that mentions this legend still doesn't make it notable enough to pass WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read my share of paranormal stories and urban legends, and I feel this article topic isn't nearly substantial enough to exist on this wiki (maybe on a ghost/paranormal wiki). Entire article is mere speculation on a specific phenomenon that has no significant basis in popular culture, has not achieved widespread recognition, fame, or notoriety, and is about as focused as an article on "Angel Statues" that come to life and attack the kids who are home alone. This explains the lack of reliable sources - there aren't going to be many for something this obscure. And essentially any of the sources linked are going to be original research. ☢Pufferfish101⑨ 04:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article fails WP:GNG and WP:V. The "reliable sources" found above are not reliable. The content guideline being used to support retention of the article requires at least one reliable source, which none of the above are. Sorry, I can't agree to keep this article. Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These "black eyed kids" sound quite freaky. I though this article was going to be about some kid version of the Black Eyed Peas. As for the AfD discussion, it looks like some sources are being discovered which may merit it being kept.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the additional sources show it passes WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can see, this passes the notability guidelines. For what it's worth, this article can't be G4d, as it's not a duplicate of the original article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've noticed sources being listed above, but if you visit the sites, it becomes evident that many of are not considered reliable per WP:RS. These articles are clearly unreliable:
    • ParaMyst: No evidence of editorial standards. Seems to just be a collection of scary stories found online. This specific article is a repost of an email.
    • Hecklerspray: This is a blog, which is commenting on the About.com article. It's not a separate source, and the About.com article, as has been described above, is of dubious reliability.
    • Shop of Little Horrors: This is another collection of online ghost stories. There's no evidence of editorial standards. Not a reliable source.
    • From the Shadows: This is a short story, not an account of the phenomenon, and while the owner of the blog has written a book, it doesn't indicate that this story is included in it.
    • UFO Mystic: Another short story off a blog, and it's not a journalistic or academic account of the phenonenon.
    • BEK: User submitted ghost stories, no evidence of editorial standards.
  • While these are of dubious reliability:
    • About: Nom has discussed the merits of this source. About.com does have some editorial standards, but is this enough?
    • UFO Digest and ProfilingtheUnexplained: These articles do describe the phenomenon, as opposed to merely telling a story, but they're from obscure, fringe sites that focus on the paranormal and are unlikely to be reliable. Also, WP:RS reccomends that sources, if they're news sites, come from mainstream or notable news sites. These two are not.
  • So I retain my delete.--hkr Laozi speak 22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia requires multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources, of which "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources". You should read the sources. The ODD-ysey one is a tertiary source (Wikipedia requires reliabile secondary sources), that merely summarises the ghost story posted on Usenet. With a one page-long tertiary source and a single secondary source, the article does not meet the criteria of WP:N or WP:RS. Supernatural phenomena tends to get a lot of press in the news media, while this event has not gotten any mainstream press, making claims of notability highly dubious.--hkr Laozi speak 08:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except when those black eyed kids come after you.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:36, 2 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Black_Eyed_Kids_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137625919"