Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (2nd nomination)

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. Walton^One 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyed Kids[edit]

Previous AfD ended "without consensus". I feel the article fails WP:N and WP:V and also smacks of WP:OR. The main source seems to be a story someone posted on Usenet. Alfa 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A ten-year-old Usenet posting is not a reliable source. The article is complete bollocks. Shalom ^Hello 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BALLS is an essay with no official standing in Wikipedia, it also does not apply to urban legend as they are required only to be "verifiable myths", not "verifiable truths". Also, the usenet account is WP:V of the original content of the myth, not WP:V of the truth of the myth. Therefore it is self referencing and self authoritating, a person's own account is always WP:V for them having made a statement regardless of whether it is not it is WP:RS for the truth of the statement itself (X is proof that Y said Z, rather than X is proof that Y was telling the truth about Z). - perfectblue 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4320/ was the most interesting link I found, and it wasn't. Hoax type stuff, made up years ago and never became popular enough in ghost stories to be notable. Pharmboy 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still Delete with Re-Write While the new article is better, it doesn't address the issue and my points. No matter how you organize the information, and no matter how poetic the verse, the topic itself is still not notable, and no rewrite can fix that. At the end of the day, it is still based on a hoax, and the hoax never got enough traction to be notable by itself. Pharmboy 21:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks non-trivial verifiable sources. Bigdaddy1981 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete with Re-Write - my original comment still applies in my view. Bigdaddy1981 16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an urban myth, what exactly are you expecting, peer review science? - perfectblue 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Digest doesn't cut it in my opinion. Bigdaddy1981 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated, it lacks sources. It seems like it might be possibly worth adding a short section on this to some other article (if better sources can be found), but it doesn't deserve a full article.Sxeptomaniac 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as we know, this could be a prank, or nonsense. There are quite a few forums and websites discussing this, so I think that the topic does deserve to be mentioned in an article about ghosts/ paranormal phenomena etc. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem, as it was during the last AFD, is that the article keeps drifting back towards treating the subject as an actual, undeniable phenomenon, rather than as folklore. Since I've long since gotten tired of the argument and can't be bothered to deal with members of the tinfoil hat crew who bristle at phrases like 'Urban Legend', I won't argue for the article to be kept, but I do want to say that I don't think it's unsalvageable. -- Vary | Talk 01:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would completely agree, were it a widely-recognised piece of folklore. I feel that even if it were rewritten with the POV-pushing removed, it would fail WP:N and WP:V Alfa 11:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now sourced to a third party and has been re written as an an urban myth. - perfectblue 12:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE The article makes no false claims that the phenomenon is anything but "reported". It is a subject that regularly appears in sources regarding the paranormal and related topics. Sourcing, however, is needed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.228.155.130 (talk • contribs).
Keep: This is a topic in popular culture and urban legend/lore, scientific evidence is not required as it is basically an oral tradition (Beliefs in popular culture can exist completely independently from science). WP:RS should also be applied accordingly, meaning that all that is really needed is evidence that it is a real urban myth, not that it is a real phenomona. Any print published source should do for these purposes. Local newspapers, books on urban legend etc. - perfectblue 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there are no reliable sources. Your suggestions of local newspapers or books are good, but I don't believe any exist, so the article will always fail WP:V Alfa 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but how hard have you looked? I mean, have you tried looking at some of the regional urbn myth magazines/books out there. Also, as this is an urban legend in popular culture, rather than something that is attesting to having scientific merit, WP:RS can be much looser (Peer review etc is completely unnecessary in cases such as this, as citations are basically used only to confirm that the myth is a genuine myth, not that the myth has any truth to it). - perfectblue 10:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked and read many references, and many read as "this is something we haven't heard of before, but someone says it is popular". Personally, I am pretty lax about accepting nominal press as wp:v but most are asking about it, not telling about it. It is still a hoax that never got legs. Pharmboy 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a regular topic for discussion, 10 years after the original story was posted on the internet. I'd say that a 10 year lifespan for a web myth is pretty sound. - perfectblue 06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, fails verifiability requirements by lacking non-trivial reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the user who sighted the Museum of Hoaxes makes it seem that just because it is discussed there thestory must be a hoax. the original informant has never claimed his sotry was a hoax and further, has stood behind it. I'm not saying they are real. What I am saying is that Modern legends and folklore have a place on wikipedia. This one is notable enough to stay in my opinion. The original report sparked quite a disucssion. You may wish to call this an internet meme if you like but I feel it is notable american folklore. Calling something a hoax just because you don't personally believe it does not make it a hoax. Seeking out every piece of folklore you don't buy and nominating it for deletion won't make that story go away. Let the article stay and then we can work on improving it and comparing it to other folklore of a similiar nature.LiPollis 16:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: Hoaxes and folklore very often are notable, and are encyclopedia worthy. I didn't say hoaxes have no place, and in fact, I believe the opposite. Ghosts are folklore, as are goblins and witches and all kinds of spooky things. They are quoted and used in many stories over the centuries and belong here. Black Eyed Kids is NOT the same, has nothing near the millions of camp fire stories told, thousands of stories published and overall universal acceptance that these have. It *is* based on a hoax, few have heard of it, fewer still care about it, and NO major publications have ever even mentioned the term, even in jest in their holloween day coverage. THAT is the issue, that it doesn't meet wp:n and can't possibly meet wp:v as there are zero wp:rs. These are real issues that no amount of "But I like it!" is going to fix. Pharmboy 16:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to take issue with your repeated use of the word 'hoax.' I'm not saying Bethel's story was true, but 'hoax' implies that a) the story has been conclusively disproved, and b)the originator of the story was actually lying. As we don't know what exactly Bethel experienced, if anything, it's entirely possible that he managed to get himself worked up over a couple of slightly creepy but otherwise normal kids. The fact that the museum of hoaxes has a page on it does not make the term accurate. It may be your opinion that it was a hoax, but please don't state it as fact. -- Vary | Talk 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then it is not a hoax. It still doesn't meet WP:N, can't be verified via WP:V because there are zero reliable sources as defined by WP:RS, and no amount of liking it changes that. Staying on topic, THOSE are the issues. Pharmboy 12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Write[edit]

As of 2007-08-11, this page has been completely re written to be about the myth rather than about Bethel's encounter. It has also been sourced to a third party analysis of the myth which takes a skeptical view. Thus any deletion nominations made against the old version (prior to a third party source being added) should not be counted against the new version unless they have been restated as applying post 2007-08-11. perfectblue 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on the article, perfectblue - you have certainly dramatically improved it. I'm not an expert on what constitutes a reliable source on wikipedia; I'll let an administrator decide whether UFO Digest ("UFO Digest provides video proof of ufos, alien abduction and the paranormal") is one. If it is, then the article should probably survive; if not, I believe the AfD should succeed. Alfa 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the source takes a skeptical approach, does not promote the topic, and that it treats it as an urban myth, there is no logical reason why it should not count as a reliable source. After all, it's discussing an urban myth, not hard science, so the WP:RS required is far more relaxed than it would be for, say, a page about quasar. - perfectblue 06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rewrite; I'm encouraged by the fact that there hasn't been an outcry from the quarters that I mentioned above. It's a pity that one of the better sources from an older version, which also had more of an 'urban legend' perspecitve, is a 404 now, though. And incidentally, in my opinion at least, an AFD 'succeeds' whenever it closes in a decision that benefits the project, whether that decision is to delete or keep the article in question. -- Vary | Talk 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep but keep non-the-less. Seems like a valid urban legend but I'd really like to see some more sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete view. This is another article that is essentially OR. Take a doubtful concept, link it with a couple of references and pad it out with psychobabble. Without some serious sources, which haven't shown up to date, it should be removed from a serious encyclopedia. Bridgeplayer 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the rewrite eliminates the problem that there are no reliable published sources.DGG (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.