- 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 was delete. The article's subject is found to be a neologism and to lack the notability required for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Intelligent haunting
- Intelligent haunting ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This seems to be an attempt to promote a neologism or at best a dictionary definition. Of the three sources, Google Books says that two don't even mention the term. Guy ( Help!) 16:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (or Merge with quantum electrodynamic haunting).- Someone put some words together that have superficially-plausible meaning, and then some other people thought it made them sound like serious researchers so they used the same neologism. The passing mention of this concept in a few popular books is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.- Mr X 17:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete
Redirect and Merge to Ghost hunting.It's apparently a term used often enough by ghostbuster hobbyists to have shown up in pop culture and entertainment sources [1].(Note thatHowever, the term being mentioned in such sources is not sufficient for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC) - Delete It's too fringe, and too poorly written. I think WP:TNT might apply, even if the subject is worth mentioning (preferably as a merge). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep In this diff I have listed some potential sources on the article talk page. Checking the logs for the page I see an unreferenced article by this name was deleted in 2007, so I began my search for sources looking specifically for ones that pre-date 2007 to avoid circular referencing issues. I found evidence of its use among "paranormal researcher" types dating back at least to 2001 and evidence of its use in ghost fiction at least as far back as 2004. I found at least one book that begins to meet reliable source standards and can be used to begin to re-write this article. I found evidence of a page describing the concept published on the Appalachian Paranormal Center website as far back as 2002, and the current page there is an extensive treatment of it, which is also a usable reference, though it should be treated with caution (seems to be written and maintained by a pair of paranormal investigators or ghost hunters; I'd have to do more research on them before I could state with confidence that it's a RS). I found an excellent article in the South Jersey Times which is also a RS and gives an in-depth treatment. The South Jersey Times article does not pre-date the Wikipedia page, but given the other results that do I am confident in asserting that this is not a neologism which has made its way from Wikipedia into the mainstream. Over the next few days I'll see if I can't re-work the article into something more acceptable. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- You need to read the sources you're suggesting building an article around. "PARANORMAL CORNER with Kelly Roncace" is not a
WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
LuckyLouie: Oh? An article in a mainstream regional newspaper by a staff features writer isn't an
reliable source by any stretch of the imagination? Maybe in that case, it's not the source I need to read, maybe I need to re-read
WP:RS. However, having re-read
WP:RS, and more specifically
WP:NEWSORG just now, the only caution I see that would apply to this article is the one on avoiding
circular sourcing, which I already addressed. Going back to your suggestion to read the source (which I did do, btw), I notice that it follows a typical feature article/lifestyles article story arc, and she defines term "intelligent haunting" in her own words in the fifth through seventh paragraphs making reference first to ghost stories and movies, then to paranormal investigators. She then goes on to back her assertions with quotes and anecdotes from her interview with a local paranormal investigator. She then goes on to discuss residual hauntings, which most of the sources I have seen, and the article itself as it stands, contrasts with intelligent hauntings. It seems to be a fairly typical article of its type, and seems to meet the standards for sources imposed in
WP:NEWSORG. Your comment made me wonder if, perhaps, she is a columnist who restricts her column to paranormal stuff, but clicking the link for her bio on the newspaper's website
[2] I see she describes herself as a "a Lifestyles reporter" and has written about not only the local paranormal scene, but also Ringling Brother's Circus, a local teacher winning "Chopped", new stores coming into a local outlet mall, a local bakery, a tatoo artist convention... in other words, nothing that leads me to believe she is anything less than a staff reporter who writes for the lifestyles section of the paper. So how does this not meet Wikipedia's standards at
WP:NEWSORG? ~
ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)
problem solving 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is framed in the same terms as a horoscope, and is as reliable as a horoscope as a source. Which means, in case it was not blindingly obvious, not reliable at all. Wikipedia is a reality-based project and we use reality-based sources.
Guy (
Help!) 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Generally speaking though, horoscopes in the newspaper are not written by staff journalists. This is more akin to if a newspaper wrote an article on terms used in astrology, and interviewed a local astrologer to define the terms. It would then be a reliable source for demonstrating how the term is used in astrology. I am not proposing to write an article claiming that intelligent haunting exists, just as if we were discussing an astrological term I would not propose to say that astrology and horoscopes are valid predictions of the future or of a person's personality traits. I am proposing to write an article on the concept of intelligent hauntings, as opposed to other types of hauntings, and how the term(s) is used in fiction and in paranormal circles. This seems to me like a perfectly acceptable source for that. ~
ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)
problem solving 23:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Weekly columns written by reporters who believe in ghosts aren't considered independent reliable sources to describe ghosts. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Generally speaking though, horoscopes in the newspaper are not written by staff journalists. This is more akin to if a newspaper wrote an article on terms used in astrology, and interviewed a local astrologer to define the terms. It would then be a reliable source for demonstrating how the term is used in astrology. I am not proposing to write an article claiming that intelligent haunting exists, just as if we were discussing an astrological term I would not propose to say that astrology and horoscopes are valid predictions of the future or of a person's personality traits. I am proposing to write an article on the concept of intelligent hauntings, as opposed to other types of hauntings, and how the term(s) is used in fiction and in paranormal circles. This seems to me like a perfectly acceptable source for that. ~
ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)
problem solving 23:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is framed in the same terms as a horoscope, and is as reliable as a horoscope as a source. Which means, in case it was not blindingly obvious, not reliable at all. Wikipedia is a reality-based project and we use reality-based sources.
Guy (
Help!) 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
LuckyLouie: Oh? An article in a mainstream regional newspaper by a staff features writer isn't an
reliable source by any stretch of the imagination? Maybe in that case, it's not the source I need to read, maybe I need to re-read
WP:RS. However, having re-read
WP:RS, and more specifically
WP:NEWSORG just now, the only caution I see that would apply to this article is the one on avoiding
circular sourcing, which I already addressed. Going back to your suggestion to read the source (which I did do, btw), I notice that it follows a typical feature article/lifestyles article story arc, and she defines term "intelligent haunting" in her own words in the fifth through seventh paragraphs making reference first to ghost stories and movies, then to paranormal investigators. She then goes on to back her assertions with quotes and anecdotes from her interview with a local paranormal investigator. She then goes on to discuss residual hauntings, which most of the sources I have seen, and the article itself as it stands, contrasts with intelligent hauntings. It seems to be a fairly typical article of its type, and seems to meet the standards for sources imposed in
WP:NEWSORG. Your comment made me wonder if, perhaps, she is a columnist who restricts her column to paranormal stuff, but clicking the link for her bio on the newspaper's website
[2] I see she describes herself as a "a Lifestyles reporter" and has written about not only the local paranormal scene, but also Ringling Brother's Circus, a local teacher winning "Chopped", new stores coming into a local outlet mall, a local bakery, a tatoo artist convention... in other words, nothing that leads me to believe she is anything less than a staff reporter who writes for the lifestyles section of the paper. So how does this not meet Wikipedia's standards at
WP:NEWSORG? ~
ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)
problem solving 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- You need to read the sources you're suggesting building an article around. "PARANORMAL CORNER with Kelly Roncace" is not a
WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough reliable sources that use this term. Note that the word haunting redirects to List of reportedly haunted locations, that might be a suitable article to redirect this term to as well. JuliaHunter ( talk) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Couldn't find reliable sources. It's not out of the question that folklorists may eventually produce RS on this, as a cultural phenomenon. Geogene ( talk) 02:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Geogene makes a good point; these kinds of distinctions between kinds of haunting may eventually become a notable cultural phenomenon, deserving of an article from the folklore point of view, much as Bigfoot is. But it hasn't happened yet. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC).
- Delete. Agree with Geogene. Preaky ( talk) 12:18, 2 March 2016 (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.
- 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 was delete. The article's subject is found to be a neologism and to lack the notability required for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Intelligent haunting
- Intelligent haunting ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This seems to be an attempt to promote a neologism or at best a dictionary definition. Of the three sources, Google Books says that two don't even mention the term. Guy ( Help!) 16:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (or Merge with quantum electrodynamic haunting).- Someone put some words together that have superficially-plausible meaning, and then some other people thought it made them sound like serious researchers so they used the same neologism. The passing mention of this concept in a few popular books is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.- Mr X 17:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete
Redirect and Merge to Ghost hunting.It's apparently a term used often enough by ghostbuster hobbyists to have shown up in pop culture and entertainment sources [1].(Note thatHowever, the term being mentioned in such sources is not sufficient for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC) - Delete It's too fringe, and too poorly written. I think WP:TNT might apply, even if the subject is worth mentioning (preferably as a merge). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep In this diff I have listed some potential sources on the article talk page. Checking the logs for the page I see an unreferenced article by this name was deleted in 2007, so I began my search for sources looking specifically for ones that pre-date 2007 to avoid circular referencing issues. I found evidence of its use among "paranormal researcher" types dating back at least to 2001 and evidence of its use in ghost fiction at least as far back as 2004. I found at least one book that begins to meet reliable source standards and can be used to begin to re-write this article. I found evidence of a page describing the concept published on the Appalachian Paranormal Center website as far back as 2002, and the current page there is an extensive treatment of it, which is also a usable reference, though it should be treated with caution (seems to be written and maintained by a pair of paranormal investigators or ghost hunters; I'd have to do more research on them before I could state with confidence that it's a RS). I found an excellent article in the South Jersey Times which is also a RS and gives an in-depth treatment. The South Jersey Times article does not pre-date the Wikipedia page, but given the other results that do I am confident in asserting that this is not a neologism which has made its way from Wikipedia into the mainstream. Over the next few days I'll see if I can't re-work the article into something more acceptable. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- You need to read the sources you're suggesting building an article around. "PARANORMAL CORNER with Kelly Roncace" is not a
WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
LuckyLouie: Oh? An article in a mainstream regional newspaper by a staff features writer isn't an
reliable source by any stretch of the imagination? Maybe in that case, it's not the source I need to read, maybe I need to re-read
WP:RS. However, having re-read
WP:RS, and more specifically
WP:NEWSORG just now, the only caution I see that would apply to this article is the one on avoiding
circular sourcing, which I already addressed. Going back to your suggestion to read the source (which I did do, btw), I notice that it follows a typical feature article/lifestyles article story arc, and she defines term "intelligent haunting" in her own words in the fifth through seventh paragraphs making reference first to ghost stories and movies, then to paranormal investigators. She then goes on to back her assertions with quotes and anecdotes from her interview with a local paranormal investigator. She then goes on to discuss residual hauntings, which most of the sources I have seen, and the article itself as it stands, contrasts with intelligent hauntings. It seems to be a fairly typical article of its type, and seems to meet the standards for sources imposed in
WP:NEWSORG. Your comment made me wonder if, perhaps, she is a columnist who restricts her column to paranormal stuff, but clicking the link for her bio on the newspaper's website
[2] I see she describes herself as a "a Lifestyles reporter" and has written about not only the local paranormal scene, but also Ringling Brother's Circus, a local teacher winning "Chopped", new stores coming into a local outlet mall, a local bakery, a tatoo artist convention... in other words, nothing that leads me to believe she is anything less than a staff reporter who writes for the lifestyles section of the paper. So how does this not meet Wikipedia's standards at
WP:NEWSORG? ~
ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)
problem solving 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is framed in the same terms as a horoscope, and is as reliable as a horoscope as a source. Which means, in case it was not blindingly obvious, not reliable at all. Wikipedia is a reality-based project and we use reality-based sources.
Guy (
Help!) 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Generally speaking though, horoscopes in the newspaper are not written by staff journalists. This is more akin to if a newspaper wrote an article on terms used in astrology, and interviewed a local astrologer to define the terms. It would then be a reliable source for demonstrating how the term is used in astrology. I am not proposing to write an article claiming that intelligent haunting exists, just as if we were discussing an astrological term I would not propose to say that astrology and horoscopes are valid predictions of the future or of a person's personality traits. I am proposing to write an article on the concept of intelligent hauntings, as opposed to other types of hauntings, and how the term(s) is used in fiction and in paranormal circles. This seems to me like a perfectly acceptable source for that. ~
ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)
problem solving 23:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Weekly columns written by reporters who believe in ghosts aren't considered independent reliable sources to describe ghosts. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Generally speaking though, horoscopes in the newspaper are not written by staff journalists. This is more akin to if a newspaper wrote an article on terms used in astrology, and interviewed a local astrologer to define the terms. It would then be a reliable source for demonstrating how the term is used in astrology. I am not proposing to write an article claiming that intelligent haunting exists, just as if we were discussing an astrological term I would not propose to say that astrology and horoscopes are valid predictions of the future or of a person's personality traits. I am proposing to write an article on the concept of intelligent hauntings, as opposed to other types of hauntings, and how the term(s) is used in fiction and in paranormal circles. This seems to me like a perfectly acceptable source for that. ~
ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)
problem solving 23:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is framed in the same terms as a horoscope, and is as reliable as a horoscope as a source. Which means, in case it was not blindingly obvious, not reliable at all. Wikipedia is a reality-based project and we use reality-based sources.
Guy (
Help!) 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
LuckyLouie: Oh? An article in a mainstream regional newspaper by a staff features writer isn't an
reliable source by any stretch of the imagination? Maybe in that case, it's not the source I need to read, maybe I need to re-read
WP:RS. However, having re-read
WP:RS, and more specifically
WP:NEWSORG just now, the only caution I see that would apply to this article is the one on avoiding
circular sourcing, which I already addressed. Going back to your suggestion to read the source (which I did do, btw), I notice that it follows a typical feature article/lifestyles article story arc, and she defines term "intelligent haunting" in her own words in the fifth through seventh paragraphs making reference first to ghost stories and movies, then to paranormal investigators. She then goes on to back her assertions with quotes and anecdotes from her interview with a local paranormal investigator. She then goes on to discuss residual hauntings, which most of the sources I have seen, and the article itself as it stands, contrasts with intelligent hauntings. It seems to be a fairly typical article of its type, and seems to meet the standards for sources imposed in
WP:NEWSORG. Your comment made me wonder if, perhaps, she is a columnist who restricts her column to paranormal stuff, but clicking the link for her bio on the newspaper's website
[2] I see she describes herself as a "a Lifestyles reporter" and has written about not only the local paranormal scene, but also Ringling Brother's Circus, a local teacher winning "Chopped", new stores coming into a local outlet mall, a local bakery, a tatoo artist convention... in other words, nothing that leads me to believe she is anything less than a staff reporter who writes for the lifestyles section of the paper. So how does this not meet Wikipedia's standards at
WP:NEWSORG? ~
ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)
problem solving 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- You need to read the sources you're suggesting building an article around. "PARANORMAL CORNER with Kelly Roncace" is not a
WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough reliable sources that use this term. Note that the word haunting redirects to List of reportedly haunted locations, that might be a suitable article to redirect this term to as well. JuliaHunter ( talk) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Couldn't find reliable sources. It's not out of the question that folklorists may eventually produce RS on this, as a cultural phenomenon. Geogene ( talk) 02:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Geogene makes a good point; these kinds of distinctions between kinds of haunting may eventually become a notable cultural phenomenon, deserving of an article from the folklore point of view, much as Bigfoot is. But it hasn't happened yet. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC).
- Delete. Agree with Geogene. Preaky ( talk) 12:18, 2 March 2016 (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.