Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paranormallogo1.png
WikiProject
Paranormal
General information
Main project page talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Newsletter talk
Peer review talk

Welcome to WikiProject Paranormal, a WikiProject that aims to provide a framework for the improvement and organization of articles related to the paranormal, anomalous phenomena and other similar areas. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask us on our discussion page.

Anyone is welcome to join by listing their username on the /Participants page and contributing to the project. Make sure to put our discussion page to your watchlist so you're notified of new discussions. Watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Paranormal is also strongly recommended.

Goals[edit]

  1. To provide a concise and accurate record of notable beliefs, organizations, experiments, individuals and events which are associated with the paranormal, including their history, background and their current status.
  2. To provide a framework (including infoboxes, categories, and examples of Best Practice) from within which scholarly entries about the paranormal, and related topics, may be produced.
  3. To provide a scholarly set of terminology to describe the paranormal which is technically, culturally, and contextually accurate.
  4. To seek out and apply verifiable mainstream sources to pages within the projects scope with the aim of A) addressing any issues of verifiability and reliability that have been highlighted in existing entries, and B) ensuring that new entries are of sufficient quality that their verifiability and reliability do not become an issue.
  5. To ensure that each entry approaches its topic from a balanced and neutral perspective.
  6. To ensure that the notability of each topic can be gleaned from its entry, without the need for additional explanation.
  7. To ensure that a clear dividing line is established between reporting the belief in/background of the topic in a scholarly manner, and advocating/denouncing the topic itself.
  8. To expand project stubs to full entries and to progress full entries to the next level.
  9. Patrol frequently vandalized pages within the project's scope.

Scope[edit]

Subjects covered by this project include (but are not necessarily limited to):

The beginnings of a list of topics which are covered in reference books directly related to this topic can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Encyclopedic articles.

Categories[edit]

High-level article categories
Stub categories

Recognized content[edit]

The following articles fall within the scope of the project and have been noted for their outstanding quality. Project members are encouraged use them as examples of good practice and to note their different writing and organizational styles.

Full list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Recognized content

Featured articles[edit]

Featured lists[edit]

Good articles[edit]

Featured pictures[edit]

Good article nominees[edit]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team release version selections[edit]

To-do[edit]

Article alerts[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Article alerts:

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Deletion sorting[edit]

Click "[show]" to expand

Paranormal deletion[edit]

Jenia Meng[edit]

Jenia Meng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I am not sure how to categorize this individual's profession but given the weight of this article upon her education, I'm going to say that she doesn't meet WP:PROF. In my online search get mentions of her in "the media", her website and social media accounts but being in the press doesn't equate to notability on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE: The following comment was posted by an editor who has edited this page both using the account Effortshitconsistentinvest and using IP editing, with the IP address 211.30.131.151. JBW (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep. Google the name, it is already given a knowledge panel. From Google: "Knowledge panels are automatically generated, and information that appears in a knowledge panel comes from various sources across the web. In some cases, we may work with data partners who provide authoritative data on specific topics like movies or music, and combine that data with information from other open web sources." https://support.google.com/knowledgepanel/answer/9163198?hl=en . The page has been vandalized because of multidisciplinary nature of the research Effortshitconsistentinvest (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google Knowledge Panel is not what we would consider a reliable source that establishes notability, especially for someone claiming credentials in the academic world. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Heavily promotional, could be G11 speedy. Article creator seems non-knowledgeable re Wikipedia standards for notability: having a Google knowledge panel means absoutely nothing for us, and none of the sources in the article meet the standards of depth of coverage, reliability, and independence from the subject required for WP:GNG notability. WP:PROF seems far out of reach for someone who claims a doctorate but is not using it in an academic capacity, for whom Google Scholar only lists one publication, and whose article instead appears based on WP:FRINGE claims. The fringe claims, in turn, create a stronger requirement that we use in-depth coverage of those claims from a mainstream point of view, to meet WP:NPOV, we do not have that coverage, and searching did not turn up anything better. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE: The following comment was posted by an editor who has edited this page both using the account Effortshitconsistentinvest and using IP editing, with the IP address 211.30.131.151. JBW (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE: The following comment was posted by an editor who has edited this page both using the account Effortshitconsistentinvest and using IP editing, with the IP address 211.30.131.151. JBW (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Google Knowledge Panel is insufficient and also always highly volatile. Admittedly, I was the original draftifier, and though the creator moved it back to mainspace I find the edits leading to that inadequate. Silikonz💬 19:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UFO-Memorial Ängelholm[edit]

UFO-Memorial Ängelholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Article about obscure statue depends on citations to mentions in unreliable WP:FRINGE sources: a selfpub Lulu book, two UFO websites, and a book by fringe author David Hatcher Childress. It may deserve a line or two at the Ängelholm article, based on a photo listing in a cultural heritage book:[1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge to the Angleholm article, it's a thing, but not really notable alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. OK article, and nominator doesn't much explain why it wouldn't be. The entity exists and at the specified location, and nominator hasn't claimed that that that isn't so. We have lots of articles on individual sculptures and markers, I've written a couple-few myself. Yeah they're obscure, but the're just going to be more obscure if we delete the articles on them, and how does that help our remit of taking info out of the darkness of obscurity and organizing and presenting here in order to help make the internet not suck as much. Yes the sources are obscure, but they're reliable for our purposes here; if we were using them support us saying that the memorialized event actually occurred, they would not be reliable, but we're not saying that, we're just explaining why such an entity was made. For much the same reason, fringeness doesn't much matter. And obscure yes, but certainly giving significant coverage, I mean there's an entire book about the subject, for starters (obscure, granted; but very in-depth, and reliable for our purposes of demonstrating why the entity exists).
It's on OK article, four short paragraphs, nice photo, refs, fits in Category:UFO culture for people looking thru that. Why destroy it. Daily page views is 25, I don't know why its that high, but that's a lot for an article like this. Participants here should consider the statement "Those 25 readers a day will be better served when they search on the term if they get a 404, or at any rate a redirect to a couple sentences, rather than this article, because _______". What goes in the blank? Tell me. If its compelling I'll change my mind. Can you do that? I doubt the article quality is much below our average. Article is marginal to even be brought to AfD. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Herostratus "The entity exists" - but you know existence is not sufficient threshold to be in Wikipedia. What makes this monument notable? As for "there's an entire book about the subject" - which book, and is it about this monument, or about the UFO incident? I have an inkling that the UFO incident may be notable, and the monument could be mentioned in such an article, but I am not seeing what makes the monument notable and deserving a stand-alone article at present. I'll note that the monument is mentioned, without sources, in Ängelholm, so yes, a merge seems an option too (and gets my vote for now as a WP:ATD). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the article, it's just that you feel it's too obscure to bother writing about. But somebody has bothered. I get that you wouldn't and would consider it a waste of your time, but we can't control other people and what's done is done. So... " "Those 25 readers a day will be better served when they search on the term if they get a 404, or at any rate a redirect to a couple sentences, rather than this article, because _______". Fill in the blank with something compelling and I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I won't. Herostratus (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went ahead and replaced the outdated 2008 photo with two improved 2021 ones from the Swedish article. 5Q5| 12:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - It's a legitimate statue and local landmark with backing from the municipality as a tourist attraction. Yes it's obscure and in Sweden, but it is a genuinely interesting article and one I imagine potential visitors to the area would read. AtFirstLight (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review after article expansion. A reminder this AFD isn't about a UFO encounter but about a memorial sculpture and whether or not it is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well actually it's about the article. And the article is not in a straitjacket. The article is about, or at least talks about, both event and memorial. Has to. So,the part on the actual (supposed) event could be expanded (or not). The article could be renamed to "UFO incident at Ängelholm" and the part about the memorial put in a separate section (or not). Or whatever. But, just to point out, none of these improvements can happen if the article is, I don't know, erased. Right? Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete I am not seeing any reliable sources that mention this topic (reference 1 and 5 are totally unreliable and should be removed). Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: I replaced the first source after seeing this comment. Reference 5 is being used a primary source; I didn't look for a replacement because it just covers a single sentence that I'm not sure belongs in the article. The best sources in the article appear to references 8 and 9, added by Julle. These are 2 newspaper articles from a major Swedish newspaper that specifically talk about the monument, its condition, its maintenance, and the area's attitude towards it. Sadly they are both paywalled and Swedish language. Expanding that last sentence into a paragraph or two would, I think, push this easily towards keep. The Roswell incident is now largely considered to have been mundane, but the alien autopsy museum out there is still notable. Rjjiii (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Psychologist Guy: I'd argue that Sydsvenskan and Helsingborgs Dagblad are reliable? Not from the UFO angle but as the dominating newspapers in southern Sweden, which is the relevant region here. And Dick Harrison is a respected historian, here writing in Svenska Dagbladet, one of the most respected newspapers in Sweden. /Julle (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Membership[edit]

To join, sign your name at the /Participants page and add the main page to your watchlist.

Members can add {{User Paranormal1}}, {{User Paranormal2}}, {{User Paranormal3}}, {{User Paranormal4}}, or {{user paranormal}} to their user pages to identify themselves as members of the project. A list of members with these userboxes is available at Category:WikiProject Paranormal participants.

Templates[edit]

Stub templates[edit]

Boilerplate templates[edit]

Feel free to use these templates where appropriate. Any major changes should be brought up on the template talk page.
{{WikiProject Paranormal}}
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
{{WikiProject Paranormal user}}
{{blackproject}} - Notice placed on talk pages of articles that discuss black projects — "highly classified military/defense projects, unacknowledged publicly by the government, military personnel, or defense contractors"

Infoboxes templates[edit]

Barnstar[edit]

{{The Paranormal Barnstar}}

Cropcirclebarnstar(small).png The Paranormal Barnstar
The Project Paranormal Barnstar, awarded to users who have made a notable contribution to the project

See also[edit]

Related WikiProjects[edit]

Tools[edit]

  • Cat scan - view recent changes to all articles in a given Category.
  • Duesentrieb's category tree - enhanced Category viewing, easily see parents and subcategories of a Category and the articles in them.