Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Paranormal
 | Points of interest related to Paranormal on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Paranormal phenomenons and related articles. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Paranormal|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Paranormal phenomenons and related articles. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
Paranormal deletion
[edit]- List of allegedly cursed objects (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 · TWL)
The sources here are very poor. Really not sure if this passes NLIST. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: I updated the sources to include more reliable sources and more could be added from print sources. Most of the items in the list have an article in Wikipedia and are notable. Since there are several citated examples of these items being discussed as a group, it also meets the requirement for a list article. Rublamb (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- The sources that discuss them as a group are not reliable, e..g Mental Floss or "US Ghost Adventures". PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Mental Floss is not on WP:RSPSOURCES as unreliable. Regardless, the following should meet the definition of reliable sources to meet NLIST:
- Ocker, J. W. Cursed Objects: Strange but True Stories of the World's Most Infamous Items (Book)
- "These Are the World's Most Haunted Paintings". The Observer
- "7 Cursed Objects Around the World Guaranteed to Ruin Your Life". Fodor's Travel Guides
- "Beware the Legends Behind These National Park Souvenirs". Atlas Obscura
- Rublamb (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- The Observer piece is about paintings, which this article is not. The rest of the sources are either WP:PROFRINGE or are not really about the subject, e.g. the Atlas Obscura piece. Ocker appears to be a cryptozoologist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Your analysis appears to be off. Paintings are objects and are included in this list; thus, The Observer article is relevant. The list in Atlas Obscura consists of objects and most are included in the article. Ocker is an Edgar Award winning travel writer who has written for The Guardian, The Boston Globe, CNN, and The Atlantic. His prior books have been reviewed in The New York Times, and this one is reviewed in Library Journal here. Fodor's is a reliable source and is not pro-fringe; it is pro-travel, which includes visiting quirky places and objects. Look at it this way: this article is about objects connected to supernatural legends, but is not saying that those legends are true. Thus, this article is not WP:PROFRINGE. Similarly, a reliable source might publish an article about this topic or write a book about this topic without being WP:PROFRINGE. You should not dismiss every possible source (including the Fodor's, Smithsonian and The Guardian) because the topic relates to legends. Rublamb (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- A more specific subset would not help a much broader topic pass WP:NLIST. And from the links you sent of the book reviews, that makes me doubt the source more ('Ocker peppers the narrative with qualifiers including "some say," "perhaps," "might just be," and "stories circulated." VERDICT Skeptics will remain unconvinced, but many will enjoy reading about the Hope diamond, Shakespeare's grave, and whether it is safe to ignore a chain letter.' not helping its case). A travel guide is not a reliable source for fringe claims about the supernatural. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- We do not need sources to prove the items are cursed or that cursed items exist, just that they have been discussed as a group. Rublamb (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- A more specific subset would not help a much broader topic pass WP:NLIST. And from the links you sent of the book reviews, that makes me doubt the source more ('Ocker peppers the narrative with qualifiers including "some say," "perhaps," "might just be," and "stories circulated." VERDICT Skeptics will remain unconvinced, but many will enjoy reading about the Hope diamond, Shakespeare's grave, and whether it is safe to ignore a chain letter.' not helping its case). A travel guide is not a reliable source for fringe claims about the supernatural. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Your analysis appears to be off. Paintings are objects and are included in this list; thus, The Observer article is relevant. The list in Atlas Obscura consists of objects and most are included in the article. Ocker is an Edgar Award winning travel writer who has written for The Guardian, The Boston Globe, CNN, and The Atlantic. His prior books have been reviewed in The New York Times, and this one is reviewed in Library Journal here. Fodor's is a reliable source and is not pro-fringe; it is pro-travel, which includes visiting quirky places and objects. Look at it this way: this article is about objects connected to supernatural legends, but is not saying that those legends are true. Thus, this article is not WP:PROFRINGE. Similarly, a reliable source might publish an article about this topic or write a book about this topic without being WP:PROFRINGE. You should not dismiss every possible source (including the Fodor's, Smithsonian and The Guardian) because the topic relates to legends. Rublamb (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- The Observer piece is about paintings, which this article is not. The rest of the sources are either WP:PROFRINGE or are not really about the subject, e.g. the Atlas Obscura piece. Ocker appears to be a cryptozoologist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Mental Floss is not on WP:RSPSOURCES as unreliable. Regardless, the following should meet the definition of reliable sources to meet NLIST:
- The sources that discuss them as a group are not reliable, e..g Mental Floss or "US Ghost Adventures". PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep but move to List of reportedly cursed objects. A WP:GTEST for cursed objects is convincing to me that it's a group topic with enough refs to satisfy WP:NLIST. 5Q5|✉ 11:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- A quick check of existing article names found 10 that use "reportedly", 3 with "reported", 9 with "alleged". So this article's name is out of alignment. I might lean toward "alleged" but would be fine either way. Rublamb (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. No opinion on a move. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The list article isn’t claiming that these objects are actually cursed. CycoMa2 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)