Content deleted Content added
ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) →South Jersey Paranormal Research: comment |
|||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
*'''Weak Keep''' There's coverage for the group going back to 2003. I added some of what seemed the most reliable sources I could find to the article, my opinion is a weak keep as I think they barely scrape in on notability standards due to the years of coverage, even if there's a debate as to whether it's regional or simply local.<font color="Purple">[[User:Raven1977]]</font><sup><font color="Blue">[[User Talk:Raven1977|Talk to me]]</font></sup><sub><font color="Purple">[[Special:Contributions/Raven1977|My edits]]</font></sub> 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Weak Keep''' There's coverage for the group going back to 2003. I added some of what seemed the most reliable sources I could find to the article, my opinion is a weak keep as I think they barely scrape in on notability standards due to the years of coverage, even if there's a debate as to whether it's regional or simply local.<font color="Purple">[[User:Raven1977]]</font><sup><font color="Blue">[[User Talk:Raven1977|Talk to me]]</font></sup><sub><font color="Purple">[[Special:Contributions/Raven1977|My edits]]</font></sub> 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''KEEP''' This group is well established in the paranormal community, having survived well beyond other "groups" that have cropped up over the past couple of years. Although geography dictates they are a "local" group, their work is viewed world-wide. They also manage to receive national media attention - not an easy feat. They are also legitimately and legally incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, organized for research. Their work HELPS people who are having difficulty dealing with paranormal activity. They helped my family and my children and never asked for a single penny for their services. The work they do is vital. Unless you have had the need to call upon their services, I think the off-the-cuff comments made by some here are unfounded and derisory. Although "ghost hunting" has become quite mainstream in recent years, the subject still manages to raise eyebrows. This group has continued to act in a professional and dignified manner since their inception and I personally am eternally greatful for their assistance. [[User: JennaBugg]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
*'''KEEP''' This group is well established in the paranormal community, having survived well beyond other "groups" that have cropped up over the past couple of years. Although geography dictates they are a "local" group, their work is viewed world-wide. They also manage to receive national media attention - not an easy feat. They are also legitimately and legally incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, organized for research. Their work HELPS people who are having difficulty dealing with paranormal activity. They helped my family and my children and never asked for a single penny for their services. The work they do is vital. Unless you have had the need to call upon their services, I think the off-the-cuff comments made by some here are unfounded and derisory. Although "ghost hunting" has become quite mainstream in recent years, the subject still manages to raise eyebrows. This group has continued to act in a professional and dignified manner since their inception and I personally am eternally greatful for their assistance. [[User: JennaBugg]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
The editor making the above comment has an almost ghostly presence with only one visible edit apparent in their history... [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' Definitely only received trivial, parochial coverage. Gain some fame and we'll write an article. The above arguments about the helpfulness of the organization are simply not valid keep reasons. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' Definitely only received trivial, parochial coverage. Gain some fame and we'll write an article. The above arguments about the helpfulness of the organization are simply not valid keep reasons. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak Keep''' Close call, but with the sources in the article I'd say it's notable.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Weak Keep''' Close call, but with the sources in the article I'd say it's notable.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:06, 9 January 2009
South Jersey Paranormal Research
- South Jersey Paranormal Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Has been tagged as not meeting WP:ORG since June, but no substantive edits have been made since September. Blueboy96 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- delete per no non-trivial mentions in any reliable secondary sources. Promotional blech.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: no references, other than to their own website. No indication of any particular prominence. If organisations could be speedied, this'd be a candidate. HrafnTalkStalk 12:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Many instances of substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources. For your purusing [1]. Sadly many require registration or payment, but the sources exist, which is the requirement of WP:N. WilyD 12:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - the ten google hits above merely establish that the group exists and has some members. Notability would require multiple reliable sources giving substantial coverage. Springnuts (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sources below from Jmundo don't offer substantial coverage either imo. Springnuts (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Using a highly nonstandard definition of substantial is very misleading. Compare "trivial" - many are obviously "nontrivial". WilyD 15:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:ORG:"The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media." The Philadelphia Inquirer 1 is not a local source (Gloucester County, New Jersey has a population of 254,673)--Jmundo (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Schuym1 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep- Meets WP:N. Subject is active and notable in the New Jersey area, 1, 2, 3 plus all the sources provided by WilyD, including the one from the Philadelphia Inquirer. --Jmundo (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:ORG despite Jmundo's pleas. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep Some evidence of notability. They've been cited repeatedly in the media and discussed to some extent. And who can argue that this work isn't vital? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Who can argue this work is vital?. Nah, that's not really the point. The point is we are discussing whether SJPR as an entity justfies a Wikipedia article, not whether its ghostbusting or whatever is vital.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I certainly don't see a reason to not follow the usual inclusion guidelines in this case, which should make this an easy keep, since there are multiple nontrivial discussions of the group in reliable publications. WilyD 15:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- They didn't take the Ghostbusters seriously either until they really needed them...
- "I don't like it" isn't a good argument at AfD, and the numerous citations from reliable sources clearly indicates this subject has notability. It's not a huge amount of notability, but it seems to be enough to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Apparently I disagree with some editors regarding the demarcation of trivial from substantial coverage. The sources presented parallel the results of my own investigation - there is some evidence that they have existed (and even gave a presentation at a local library!), but not that they should be treated here. No prejudice to recreation if they receive in depth coverage from reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep There's coverage for the group going back to 2003. I added some of what seemed the most reliable sources I could find to the article, my opinion is a weak keep as I think they barely scrape in on notability standards due to the years of coverage, even if there's a debate as to whether it's regional or simply local.User:Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- KEEP This group is well established in the paranormal community, having survived well beyond other "groups" that have cropped up over the past couple of years. Although geography dictates they are a "local" group, their work is viewed world-wide. They also manage to receive national media attention - not an easy feat. They are also legitimately and legally incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, organized for research. Their work HELPS people who are having difficulty dealing with paranormal activity. They helped my family and my children and never asked for a single penny for their services. The work they do is vital. Unless you have had the need to call upon their services, I think the off-the-cuff comments made by some here are unfounded and derisory. Although "ghost hunting" has become quite mainstream in recent years, the subject still manages to raise eyebrows. This group has continued to act in a professional and dignified manner since their inception and I personally am eternally greatful for their assistance. User: JennaBugg —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
The editor making the above comment has an almost ghostly presence with only one visible edit apparent in their history... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely only received trivial, parochial coverage. Gain some fame and we'll write an article. The above arguments about the helpfulness of the organization are simply not valid keep reasons. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Close call, but with the sources in the article I'd say it's notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. The sources are there to establish that the group has at least some sort of notability--now, ChildofMidnight may argue that the group's work is vital, but that's neither here nor there, and says more about her psychological condition than about the group. Raven's references border on the regional side of the regional/local divide, and this coverage is about as substantial as one can expect from that kind of paper. While reporters (hopefully) write this sort of thing tongue-in-cheek, they do write it, and their papers publish it. And so we do too! Drmies (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Frankly, I am surprised that this article would be up for deletion. I researched the group and South Jersey Paranormal Research is well-known not only in New Jersey, but also up and down the Eastern Seaboard as well. The group's founder, Susan Bove', is considered an expert in the field of electronic voice phenomena. Also, SJPR, from what I've read, is very involved with nonprofit organizations and helping out at fundraisers not to mention assisting families who are afraid of living in their homes. It sounds like they are experts at what they do, so why would you want to kick them off? I think that the group's mission and work are things that are of huge interest to the population, even though they were ahead of the game long before the other so-called paranormal groups came along and became hip.--User: twostarz_n_saturn —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC).
- But for many participants in this AfD discussion the problem is precisely notability, and while you may be right about how well known they are, you ought to be able to prove that also, by pointing to verifiable coverage. "It sounds like they are experts" is not exactly encyclopedic, and their charity, if unverified, may be noble but is not what decides if they stay or go. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)