Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal vanishing

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 no consensus, although I expect it'll swing through here again at some point. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal vanishing

Paranormal vanishing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

blatant WP:NOR violation ➥the Epopt 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• History: The article was proposed for deletion and deletion was endorsed by at least one other editor, and the tags remained untouched for five full days, but after deletion an editor claimed that objections were recorded on the Talk page. I still can't find those objections, but I undeleted the article and listed it here.
  • Article has been extensively rewritten to eliminate most if not all OR, changing nominator's opinion on deletion to no opinion. Closing admin should discount all comments made before the rewrite ➥the Epopt 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - does not appear (heh) to be a term in common usage amongst parapsychologists (23 ghits, many of which are Wikipedia), possibly a neologism. Otto4711 16:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as bollocks, and apparently not even a recognised type of bollocks at that. While the 'phenomenon' might be documented (although hardly reliably), the article smacks of original research. The Crying Orc 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Paranormal Vanishing talk Page

1. Against: but only if a lot more work is done to bring the page up to scratch. perfectblue 08:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Against: paranormal vanishing shows its own characteristics and therefore the article should be kept! 89.49.87.130
3. Against: as above, and also that the stories of disappearances, even when refuted, keep recurring in new forms; looks like a form of folklore, and so notable on that basis. Totnesmartin 14:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The objections were placed on the pages talk page and have since been moved here. Original dates and user names have been preserved. perfectblue 16:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- Whpq 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Folantin 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or maybe Categorize. A category might be helpful where an article would just be OR. -- Deleuze 21:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Delete per nominator. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Provided sources are added, I see no reason to delete this. I have a nice book that could help add to it. There's no doubt gonna be people who find anything remotely paranormal unreliable. The fact is, whether it's true or not, it has been documented. I just think this personal was trying for a legitimate article. Disappearances that have been attributed to a paranormal cause just isn't a good title. I don't think the title is to promote a neologism, it's just an attempt at a short descriptive title. If I get the chance, I'd like to have a go at fixing this. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete see WP:NOR Wikipediarules2221 04:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: neologism: please see WP:BOLLOCKS. Moreschi 10:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-written

This page has been re-written into a more structured version using clear citations and modified examples. Specifically, OR has been replaced with (all be it unbalanced) views from WP:V sources. It's not perfect by a long shot (WP:V against still needs to be added), but it provides a starting point from which a wiki-appropriate article could be written.

Please check and reaffirm/change votes based on the new version rather than the old version.

perfectblue 12:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: For the same reasons cited above. Sure, you have sources, but the sources also state that they really fall into the fourth dimension as a possible theory. Methinks they are not reliable. Also, a lot of the article seems to be about a single case that was fake. --CF90 14:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The articles been re-written, POV and OR are removed, and multiple non-tivial reliable, verifiable independent sources of information have been added. I think that covers all potential whinging concerns over the articles quality. DarkSaber2k 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

n

• Keep Much has been made from the deletion side about "paranormal vanishing" being a neologism. And while this might, in a sense, be true, it only means that there is a difficulty in categorisation in this case. It says nothing about the subject of the article itself which is fairly well known and is certainly not new. The whole notion of paranormal vanishings or disapperances, of people(temporary or permanent), and sometimes of things, has a very long and solid tradition in folklore and, with the new arrival of, e.g., the alien abduction phenomenon, it seems to be firmly embedded in the modern world as well. The point, then, is that the problem here is merely one of what to call the article so that people can find it; the subject itself, on the other hand, surely meets all the criteria to warrant an article.Davkal 15:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The article needs work but is has some valid information, it should be improved further not deleted. - Solar 16:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Needs work, but is a valid topic. perfectblue 18:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - i will have a go at it tomorrow, and redirect to a new title, and include 'disappearance stories' not simply as phenomena but as folklore ("strange disappearances" is a better title - a websearch turned lots of relevant returns, so that's a better title to go with.) (personal comment: why didn't anyone read the article's discussion page, where there was a consensus building up that it should be 'kept but improved'?) Totnesmartin 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Much better since the recent flurry of rewrites. Needs more work, but it's a valid subject. --Careax 20:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I think the concept is one that is not in use among paranormal investigators, and thus can only be useful for categorization. Nobody writes about "paranormal vanishings" en toto, but specific ones may exist. Deleuze 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Try Vanishings by Michael Harrison and Into Thin air by Paul Begg. Both 80s books,but there may be more recent ones. Totnesmartin 11:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Week Keep per Deleuze's reasoning and Totnesmartin's counter-argument. I truly think that the subject is a bit to ad hoc... but it's got books written about it, so why not? A new title would be nice... how about "Unexplained vanishings" or something? ---J.S (t|c) 19:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

there's general agreement the "paranormal vanishing" is a crap title, but no consensus on a suitable replacement. Yet. "Strange disappearances" is my own fave... see the discussion on the talk page. Totnesmartin 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I just wandered by for the first time and it seems acceptable. Needs work, but that goes for a lot of stuff around here. Stephen Aquila 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Against: for reasons mentioned above, as well as the fact that this subject is well-covered at other places on the internet, such as About.com's paranormal pages ("Vanished! Unexplained Disappearances" and "Into Thin Air") and deserves to be adequately described in Wikipedia's paranormal section. Cynthia Sue Larson 17:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (Moved form paranormal vanishing talk page)
• Keep The subject is notable as a whole, the events are notable, and there are more to be added. Perhaps better this way than separate articles on each. I confess that I think it is all a little nutty, but so is our culture--we are here to document it, not pass judgement on it. User:DGG
• Delete still doesn't meet notability requirements, and still reads and feels like a neologistic explication. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The article can help clearing some contraversary information of this topique.

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.