Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of reportedly haunted locations

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 keep. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of reportedly haunted locations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the page is referenced (how I am not sure), the question begs...is it really necessary to have a list of haunted locations? Wikipedia is not a indescriminate batch of information. I think this fails WP:N and WP:V, might even run into WP:OR problems here too. If people want haunted location sites, they can always go here. NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 08:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think WP:V is an insurmountable problem. The article doesn't assert that any given location is haunted, just that it is reportedly haunted. We can surely find neutral sources to back up at least a good chunk of the entries. That said, this list could potentially have thousands of entries, so I'm not entirely sure it's maintainable. Zagalejo^^^ 08:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I used WP:V for those who don't believe in ghosts. Covered on my bases on that :) But if you look at the link I included in the listing, there are thousands in just the US, then they include international sites, that is another couple thousand or so...the page would be out of control by that point. So, maintainability (good point by the way) is another factor. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A list like this could be a problem if it was filled with uncited haunted locations added by children and not representive of most of the world, but it looks well cited, neatly kept, and worldwide in scope, while not being overly long. Many of the haunted locations are bluelinks. And the list has existed since Dec 2003, and nothing like an overgrowth has happened. Abductive (reasoning) 10:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2007. The result was Keep. Just make sure that all that are listed are correctly cited. --BSTemple (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article with citations to reliable and verifiable sources is a rare prize on Wikipedia. In answer to the nominator's question, "is it really necessary to have a list of haunted locations?", yes, people refer to an encyclopedia for information about topics that they are interested in. Some people are interested in the "supernatural" and they want to find out more about such topics. Perhaps you and I don't care about such things -- I know that I hate turning on "The History Channel" and finding out that this is "UFO Week" -- but other people do, and they can find reliable citations to other information. Mandsford (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Knowitall (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But take off the uncited ones. Borock (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sheer volume of cites is usually a good indicator of an article that has sourcing problems. Out of the 153 or so references listed in the article there only 1 or 2 reliable sources (if that many) in the bunch. Lots of haunted tour websites, plenty of blogs, the West Michigan Ghost Hunter's Official website, and lots of (very) small town news outlets filling human interest stories with local rumor, innuendo, and old wive's tales. This type of article belongs in the Encyclopedia Dramatica not here. L0b0t (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several of the references are from publications, and newspapers. Even small time ones like Chicago Tribune? Of course we have a dubious sites like this one Here. If this list grows (and it hasn’t greatly for the last few years) it just means each country will get its own page, but this page will remain and link to them. And what do you mean "sheer volume of cites is usually a good indicator of an article that has sourcing problems" some of our main articles have a mass of cites making them lead articles, but you think they have a problem? --BSTemple (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your calling the Chicago Tribune "small time" was done tongue-in-cheek. Abductive (reasoning) 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was, same as the dubious site. It was more to answer L0b0t's claim of reliable sources and comments. --BSTemple (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as article remains properly sourced. Giant Snowman 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mandsford. Some parts may need better sourcing, but there are plenty of reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2009 (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.