Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 Haunted Locations in Newcastle

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.--cj | talk 05:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Haunted Locations in Newcastle[edit]

Non notable list which is unsourced. Fails WP:V. Delete. JRG 05:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JRG 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong delete How on earth am I supposed to know whether a location is "haunted" or not? Because a daily newspaper said so in a throwaway column? Come on... Shalom ^Hello 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I see one more instance of "reputed", I'm going to beat someone with a WP:WEASEL. Fails WP:RS, probably WP:OR, too. Caknuck 06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list of locations which one paper though "fun" to publish. There needs to be multiple sources to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, this list would appear to infringe WP:COPY Ohconfucius 07:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate, probably unverifiable, and Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a local newspaper. Hut 8.5 08:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Maybe we need WP:NOTLETTERMAN to cover this stuff. Acroterion_(talk) 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki WikiTravel would love this type of stuff, spook tours are great.Ga rr ie 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Digitty digitty digitty Deleted Even IF you can tell if this spot is haunted and that spot isn't, how the heck are any of these more "haunted" than another? -WarthogDemon 01:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for a Travel Guide and also this list is useless. It should only be mentionned in the city's article.--JForget 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Urban legend, Hoax, and per Caknuck. Bearian 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an alternative perspective - "Top 10" is inherently POV too. There are so many things wrong with this article that it's almost spooky. Lankiveil 10:27, 29 June 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.