Talk:Intelligent haunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Speedy declined[edit]

Noting here that I declined the speedy-delete for this article, and also noting that multiple books make use of this term... in case an editor is interested in trying to build this into an article rather than just a definition. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The nonsense part is "ghosts who are capable of intelligent interacting or communication with ghosts". Not only is this a non-notable definition, it's wrong (nonsense).    7   talk Δ |   03:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Understood, but something being wrong is not a speedy-delete criterion. CSD G1 applies to Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, which is different than your use of the term "nonsense". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand G1 and WP:PN. I believe you are thinking of the first of the two criteria for PN. I am thinking of the second, and my use of the term is consistent with that criteria. Regardless, hopefully the prod will stick.    7   talk Δ |   03:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, sorry if it came across that I was lecturing to you. Anyway, the article does not currently run afoul of either of the two criteria of WP:PN. If there are enough sources about the concept that a well-verified article can be built, then I hope that happens. As it stands, though, the article can be deleted (though not speedy-deleted) because of the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Noprob- I'm not trying to be defensive either, just kind of sounds like that. Every admin is different, and I've seen A1 and G1 deletions in the past with a lot more content/context, and I've seen even worse articles survive them... As it stands today I agree that it really should be deleted. Thanks.    7   talk Δ |   04:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

DELETELooks like this discussion went nowhere back in 2009-2011. Maybe now it can be dealt with? The concept of intelligent hauntings is just silly. Just because some ghost hunters believe in it does not mean it is worthy of a WP page of its own. Also where is the notoriety of it?Sgerbic (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about adding this information. Any thoughts?[edit]

People Feel that a ghost is present and is trying to communicate with them. During these hauntings the ghosts are limited how they can actually communicate with the human. They typically can only move light things. In these cases they only want to be recognized by the human but they end up getting scared. These occurrences happen between 11pm and 4am because it’s the darkest outside. It’s easier for the ghost to be seen during the night because they don’t have to use as much energy. These ghosts can cause trouble scarring you on purpose because that house could have been theirs and they want you out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous777985 (talkcontribs) 09:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase another editor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The problem with fringe assertions is that regular sources, like journalists and scholars, often see them as too preposterous to refute. In many cases the best approach is to attribute the information. Rather than saying "Ghosts typically do X, are limited to doing Y, and have been seen doing Z", say "Ghost Busting Tips author John Smith writes that..." - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)