Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thurrock Paranormal

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 of the debate was delete. DS 18:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thurrock Paranormal

  • Delete - This page is spam and is not written to an encyclopaedic level Solar 14:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and suggest considering adding spammed links to black list. JoshuaZ 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I also suspect this page is a hoax at least in aspects, such as its link to Thurrock Museum. Gwernol 15:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Pure vanity spam, nonsense, pointless, nonnotable, just totally pathetic all around. DreamGuy 20:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Concur. -- Ec5618 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page could use some work, but ample references are provided so that I doubt it is a hoax, nor would I call it totally non-notable. Arundhati bakshi 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is Not a hoax. I take no pleasure in creating fake articles because if you knew what I do for a living you would understand. This is a hobby and we are the work of a non profit and non charging organisation. The references to Thurrock Museum are real and we do a lot of work through them. If my entry is pure spam and vanity then I would like to bring to your attention Spirit Searchers whos entry is basically an advert and Most Haunted who are extremely controversial. Spirit Searchers have placed links on other related pages and nothing has been done to them. We have researched a considerable amount of history for the area and have wikified it back to the thurrock and essex pages. I have wikified words for links on my article back to their entrys and placed a link on related pages as like other similar sites have done to no consequence. I take offence to being classed as "totally pathetic all around" the subject of paranormal may be pathetic to some but it is of major interest to a considerable number of people. The area we study has long reaching history and has been a part of many battles and historic relevant times such as the "Tilbury Fort Speech" Anne Boleyn and Wat Tyler. I have wikified many parts of the article to other totally relevant pages that contain considerable information about the area we study. It took a lot of work writing the article and I am prepared to re-structure should you wish it to stay. I have been working closely with a Wikipedia team member who has been a great help in making sure that this article meets the requirements. It is developing all the time. The team member has made sure that it changed from an advert which I now know was wrong. I have now included historical references to Thurrock's past and there is a lot more to come. I would like to add finally, that if you do decide to delete my links or my article please take a look at other articles/links which have done the same, to which I have followed suit. This is my first article written for Wikipedia and I have been given great help by members of your team who have been kind and understanding. Thank you for your consideration Pchurch 18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
While I understand your position I am presently trying to bring the areas of parapsychology and the paranormal to a higher standard on wikipedia. It is an area I am very familiar with and very positive about, but I am still neutral towards articles in this area. My decision to nominate your page for deletion was not personal and I hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia beyond your own organisation if your page is deleted. It has simply come to my attention that many groups have been using this site as a promotion tool, including UKSPI who were recently deleted.
Wikipedia policy is: "Don't make a new article for your own product or Web site. Most often, when a person creates a new article describing their own work, it's because the work is not yet notable enough to have attracted anyone else's attention. Articles of this sort are known as vanity pages and are usually deleted. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about popular products and Web sites, but it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia to popularize them."
Please also take a look at these common arguments or strawmen:
Spammers will offer arguments like the following. These are strawman arguments, for the reasons listed.
  • "But you have links to commercial sites in the list."
    • Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not about commercial sites at all. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not.
  • "But you have links to other sites that people have added for self-promotion."
    • Those need to go, too. The fact that we haven't gotten around to it, yet, does not mean that we have some obligation to have your site.
  • "But you have a link to site Y, and my site is just like that."
    • We don't need to link to every site in existence that meets a certain criteria. Sometimes we just need one site representative of a category. (See also the comments about linking to web directories instead, so that Wikipedia does not become a web directory.)
  • "But these links have been here for a long time."
    • There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, especially when the decision was never discussed on the talk page. Just because nobody noticed your spam a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep it in.
  • "My link is very unique."
    • It is more likely that the link they have added has no more information than the Wikipedia article itself.
As per above I will be looking into other sites such as Spirit Searchers, the work I am doing in this area will be fair and neutral. I have already removed many links from paranormal pages that do not live up to encyclopaedic standards. - Solar 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have found this article very informative and it has helped me with a future project i will be doing.Rachywachydooda 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This user has no other contributions and is likely to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this vote should be discounted. - Solar 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your constructive comments. I was very offended by DreamGuys comments as there was no need for comments like that. I am new to this type of article writing and he has "bitten the hand" of someone new! I am willing and prepared to work with you to make this area of interest to you and me more positive for inclusion to Wikipedia. I wanted to change this article name to "Thurrocks Paranormal History" and write about that but unfortunately the name of the article had stuck and couldn't be changed. Pchurch 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Solar I am shocked that now I'm being accused of "Sock puppeting" This is not a multiple user ID to boost the vote, if you are concerned about the dashes above the comments made by .Rachywachydooda then I put those in to tidy up this. If someone has been using the article and has seen this then surely they can vote if they register to do so? Please can you check IP then it'll prove it Pchurch 20:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pchurch, I do not wish to upset you, but when new users appear simply to vote is it highly suspicious. ShaneR is clearly a meatpuppet as he has identified himself as the founder of your group. I note that you were warned by Arundhati bakshi not to use this tactic as it would undermine your position.
What is a meatpuppet? "A meat puppet is a variation of a sock puppet; a new internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues. While less overtly deceptive than sock puppetry, the effect of meat puppetry and sock puppetry on the community as a whole may be similar."

Please stop this tactic to avoid disrupting the process. - Solar 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Solar I have no control over what people on other computers have written. I have seen ShaneR's input and he has his right to add his comments. I have not instructed them to do this and I am insulted that you believe that I have used this tactic. People use this Wikipedia all the time and it is possible, just possible that ShaneR has seen the delete notification and went to take a look at what was being said and added his own. Pchurch 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • keep This is not spam or a hoax, feel free to contact thurrock museum and ask about us, They help me with the history of the location and after the report is done a copy is sent to the museum. They also tell us of location they know that paranormal events have been reported in, Some times will also ask us toinvestigate locations that might soon be pulled down so a record can be made of it.

I have spent many years setting up Thurrock Paranormal and a great deal of my own money, the site and investigation is done for the love of the subject and not for any profit. you are also free to call any of the locations on the site to ask them about us. The reports that i do pull all the history form the local area into one report someting that has not ben done before. I try to get a good blend of local history and local myths, Thurrock is a very old place and is full of history and for years i have felt that not much has been put onto paper about the history and the strange events that have been reported. shane ralph, Thurrock Paranormal FounderShaneR 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This user has no other contributions and is likely to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this vote should be discounted. - Solar 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Bold text In fact i run Thurrock paranormal and if you took the time to even look at the website you find that what you are saying has no grounds

My name is SHANE RALPH, you can look me up on the main website or if you do call the location they will all know me, i find you comments very childish when all you have to do is tolook at our main site to see how we are. SHANE RALPH, THURROCK PARANORMAL FOUNDERShaneR 20:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I informed the witer of the article that any use of sock puppets would likely be detrimental to his cause, and do not think that he is using them. Check his IP address to be sure if you can. I think the criticism "Pure vanity spam, nonsense, pointless, nonnotable, just totally pathetic all around" by DreamGuy is really beyond the bounds of good taste and good faith. It would be nice if more civility could be used when critiquing an article. The user has put in a lot of work since the beginning of this article to ensure that it became steadily more encyclopedic. The notability requirement seems to check out, it passes the google test, at any rate and has been mentioned in a number of publications. The only problem I see now is that some people either may dislike the article because a member of the troupe wrote it (usually a bad idea, but if someone else were to have created more or less the same article, would it then be on AfD?), or that some people just dislike the topic because of its controversial nature. Remember this is this fellow's first post here, and if we delete the page, we need a good reason, not merely a dislike of the topic. Arundhati bakshi 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like an IP scan to prove that I have not used "Sock Puppets" please. I believe I have the right to defend myself on here and prove a point. Thank you! Pchurch 20:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Keep" For a site that deals in the Paranormal and isnt a commercial venture, I suggest people commenting here actually take a look at the site and the reports. The locations mentioned are of historical value in the Thurrock area, see The Royal Hotel. For this to be up for deletion, but entries made in Wikipedia as per The Metro newspaper a few weeks back being allowed, though they were proved to be totally inaccurate at the time, this seems more like a witch hunt, pardon the pun than an administrative attempt at keeping wikipedia free of spamming. Can a truly plausible reason be given for why this site is up for deletion as spam?

On behalf of those being called Sock Puppets etc. If you know of an entry being deleted but beleive it to be totally unfair due to it being of value to readers (not all readers as not all people are interested in the Paranormal), you should expect some comments in defence of the entry. Does this not also show that those meatpuppets etc are also pleased to see such entry appear in Wikipedia and not see Wikipedia as a waste of cyberspace?

This user has no other contributions and is likely to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this vote should be discounted. - Solar 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This user is not a Sock or Meat puppet, but yes has no other contributions since prior to this little debate they were wuite happy with the way things were. I find the terms an insulting name for someone who is issuing their first post on a topic they chose to contribute too. should there be a name for those that dislike a topic for no apparent valid reason? Yours politely, Bigmumma

  • Keep This article is one the best written by a newbie.!! and i dont understand wheres the spam in the article... Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlike Michigan Dawn to Dusk Paranormal Group, which was actually written up in an AP story in October, 2005, Thurrock Paranormal and Shane Ralph both have zero coverage in Lexis/Nexis European news sources. Fails verifiability and notability. Most of the article is about alleged paranormal activity in Thurrock, and could be merged to List of haunted locations if properly sourced. Thatcher131 19:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How many other sources in this entire encyclopedia are found in Lexis/Nexis European News Sources??? In fact I searched their website for "Paranormal" and it came back with "zero" results. I am shocked that you expect one source to be used as a quotation and reference point for notability for this entire site!

Quite frankly I have had enough of the way I have been treated on here! There are only two persons on here who can show pride in what they do and that's Arundhati bakshi and Solar I have been scorned and slated for writing something I am passionate in! Turning a part of where I live into a historical report on alleged paranormal activity and there was more to come. Just because it is controversial doesn't mean it should be deleted! And as for accuracy and quoting Lexis Nexis etc.... The "Dolly the Sheep" article which was so full of errors it had to be pulled and made the national papers claiming this site to be fatally flawed, makes me so angry! This feels like a witch hunt against all "newbies" as I've been reading most newbie articles and there you all are ganging up on them! Some of the comments I have received on here have been totally out of order! Yet I stand there politely fighting my corner against all odds and I don't get one single apology about what was said!

Delete the article for all I care! I will not be posting or writing any more articles on here for fear of ridicule and abuse. I will not be visiting the site anymore and after seeing the numerous news articles from the bbc etc I know I'm making the right choice. I will also make sure I highly recommend no one else I know uses this site or attempts to write any article for this site as I certainly don't want them to be subject to abuse or highly one sided and inaccurate information! Arundhati bakshi and Solar I thank you for all of your help and support in helping me write and edit the article and to Jayant, thanks for helping me up when I was down.

Pchurch 21:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel put upon. One of the guidelines for inclusion is verifiability. The fact that there have been problems in the past is not a good reason to ignore the guideline now. Another guideline is notability or importance, which goes hand in hand with verifiability; if some independent sources have written about a subject, that is a good indication that it is both notable and verifiable. Regarding Lexis/Nexis, it is a tool I use to try and determine whether a subject has received independent news coverage. Many people use Google hits or Alexa rankings to influence their opinions regarding articles nominated for deletion. I choose to use Lexis/Nexis, partly because it is a specific indicator of coverage in "mainstream media" and partly because it is a subscription site that few other Wikipedians have ready access to, so it adds information to the discussion. I have never pretended it is some kind of ultimate authority. In fact L/N lists 129 articles in the past year with the words "paranormal" and "investigation" in the European press alone.
Regarding your article, it really is two separate articles. The information about haunted places in Thurrock could certainly be included in the article List of haunted locations if you can include soure citations, and I recommend you use in-line links or footnotes, and be specific (for instance, if a magazine discusses a place, give the date and page number of the issue, not just the magazine title). You could even try to create List of haunted places in Thurrock, England if you think there is enough specific information to justify a separate article. Be aware of the policy of No original research though; you need to point to independent 3rd party information. The other part of the article, about your own investigations, will generally not be supported here unless there is evidence that you have attracted independent attention (from magazines, newspapers, TV shows, etc.) Thatcher131 21:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me add, I strongly encourage you to add the Thurrock haunting sites to List of haunted locations or to start a new article about Thurrock hauntings which you can link to List of haunted locations and also to Thurrock. Although I strongly urge you to use specific footnotes wherever possible and to avoid including anything that might be characterized as original research or personal experience. Thatcher131 21:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Vanity non-notable ghostcruft- The logo looking like it was drawn by a 12 year old who just discovered WordArt really says it all for notability. -Mask 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment You know i dont care if you get rid of the page now, as far as i see it the members on here apart from a few just try to make it look like they have power in the real world when most of the time they are at home all alone with no life,The members of Thurrock Paranormal will carry on doing our investigation no matter what, we are seen as of of the best investigation team around, why have we not been on tv and radio??? well i have turned them down,Shows like Ghost town that i helped out are a joke with no fact based information, and when the do get it they just paas it on the derek so he looks good on tv, as for MICHIGAN'S DAWN TO DUSK PARANORMAL GROUP, they should not be on here as they are making money out of what they do ....see below

Certificate from our affliated sponsor, GPRC Test are for: APPRENTICESHIP CERTIFICATION-Individual: $35.00, Couples: $60.00 JOURNEYMAN CERTIFICATION- Individual:$35.00, Couples: $60.00 ShaneR 09:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


M Has just proved my point about abusive users on here! "drawn by a 12 year old who just discovered word art!" How dare you! Not all of us are skilled in the art of graphic design and AS WE ARE A NON PROFIT NON CHARGING ORGANISATION we cannot afford it!!! "Non notable ghostcruft" Well you are in Alaska and we are in England. All we are trying to do is place an article about the areas alleged paranormal activity for those that may have an interest or live in the area. THIS HAS TURNED PERSONAL!! THESE ARE PERSONAL ATTACKS (which is a breach of this sites rules!) AND IT'S NOT CONSTRUCTIVE. If this is what Wikipedia is about then to hell with it! Pchurch 10:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


A personal attack like that makes that user look like an immature 12 year old. Maybe lots of people are not interested in Thurrock paranormal but if it helps a few then surely it is worth keeping as it will help make this encyclopedia the best one around. Rachywachydooda 11:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

you asked for some verifiability; if some independent sources have written about a subject. well find the book THURROCKS PAST(ECHOES OF THE PAST) by Alan Leyin you will finda lot of our locations there and the reported ghosts. in fact Daiel Defoe in 1724 (a tour of the whole island of great britain) talks about mucking,tilbury and then resd The mirror of the sea by Joseph Conrad( lived in thurrock for some time) and then read,

and more Ghost information can be found in  The peoples history of Essex by D.W Coller 1861

and tend read Alice of fobbibg :or the times of jack straw and wat tyley by Rerv.w.e. heygate 1860 and then readHeart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad 1902 but you must read LIFE AND RECOLLECTIONS by Hon Grantly Berkely 1866 , there is great pice on the Ghost of Belhus. you said you need so pages well here are some A Essex ghost hiunters guide to essex page 83, langdon hills, pg,119 muckingpg, 120,124 corringham, 114,117,124,134 fobbing once you have read this then i feel you will see i know what i am talking about.ShaneR 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


oh must add somthing, about our logo, yep thanks i did do it and it was done on photo shop, yes i have just started using it but i tell you what its much better than MICHIGAN'S DAWN TO DUSK PARANORMAL cartoon lol, if you think they are better than you should lok at the paranormal photo on MICHIGAN'S site, hmm orb's dont think so, tattoo ghost dont think so, its a face on a tv screen and you dont need to be a paranormal investigator to work that one out.ShaneR 12:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ShaneR, (blank)cruft is the standard phrase used here for an article that appeals only to someone who is interested in whatever (blank) is. The generalization fancruft was the initial usage, and blogcruft is the most common by my count. It's not insulting. As for your notability claims: all those do is assert that the locations you have investigated are notable, not that you are. You need sources that mention Thurrock Paranormal, not paranormal places in thurrock. Calm down, chief, you're making yourself look foolish. -Mask 17:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but i feel that we are being told to sell out(turn to the media) if we did this every time we investigated a location we would be expected to say it was haunted, somthing we dont do, there are loads of location that I have been asked to visit and when i got there all it turned out to be was damp or the heating coming on in the night making doors pop open. As i state on the website we are link no other investigation team, we do not book location and charge £35 per person to go on a investigation and make loads of money out of it. If you take this page down so be it , i will go to the media when i feel it is right and i will not be pushed into saying things just to keep them happyShaneR 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ShaneR, if you were notable, you would not go to the media, they come to you. At the very least a local newspaper would write a story about you. I went to college for journalism. If somebody comes to us asking for a story about them, we turn them down. We write stories, not propaganda. This is further proof it is a small-time group unworthy of an entry. -Mask 17:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

so would you like me to send you all the emails i have from tv companies asking help, wou;d you also the phone number of the company that make Ghost Towns, you can ask them why i did not take part in the show, it would be funny to hear what they would say.all this i can give, Just let me know were to send it. but i will only send it if you are going to do itShaneR 18:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill the cable guy does not constitute a reliable source. see WP:V -Mask 18:27, 31 March 2006 (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.