Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Children

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyed Children[edit]

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

This article is centred upon a largely unsourced, speculative, irrelevant paranormal myth. It has little encyclopaedic value going for it, its full of original research and it seemingly has little cultural relevance to render any serious notability. TF92 (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably. As it stands, this terribly credulous article is referenced to a pair of British tabloid papers and a decidedly non-serious news.com.au story, plus a handful of non-RS websites. It might—might—be possible to find enough reasonable reliable sources to put together an article on this topic as a local-myth-cum-cultural-phenomenon, but it would look nothing like what we have here, which essentially presents this as legitimate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pretty crappy in its current state, but that can easily be remedied by removal of questionable content. This article is enough to confer notability on the topic. IvoShandor (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what was intended, but that link doesn't take me anywhere relevant to the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy error. It's fixed now. It was supposed to be a link from JREF. IvoShandor (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep. While making improvements to the article I found a couple of objective sources that establish this as an urban legend going back at least a dozen years. It probably deserves a stand alone article, provided that fringe sources or sensational tabloid reports aren't taken at face value. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Delete Currently making the rounds in the pre-Halloween news-of-the-weird slot [1]. It remains to be seen if the concept will have a lasting impact with serious in-depth coverage as a notable urban legend. But it's not there yet. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I admit it's in a pretty crap state but there does seem to be coverage in general [2][3][4][5], Most of what I've found are "cannock chase" related, UFO can be seen as a myth and has its own article so I don't see why this can't (and yes I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The essential question to any debate about a page with questionable factual/verifiable content should surely revolve around why an individual would look for that content - this can be phrased in another way: is the content something which has entered general public awareness or is it a niche topic ? In this case I feel that this test is passed, simply because a national (UK) newspaper has, rightly or wrongly, featured the title on a front page headline; as a consequence members of the public may seek further information and what better source than Wikipedia. If that argument is accepted then the onus is on the community to ensure that the content of the page provides the context for the subject - whilst it may appear whimsical the arguments should be presented. I'm afraid that simply suppressing something, which has been brought to the public consicousness by the press-barons, is short-sighted and weak willed but, more fundamentally, will compromise people's faith in Wikipedia as a source of information which can be used to build their world view.
Please K E E P T H I S E N T R Y...... Black eyed children??? Eigh whats that all about I thought ?... not being familiar with the subject of black eyed children or their origens, I read with interest, In my opinion, I found this entry very informitave, I did not considder it to be biast or leading and felt that it gave me a quick & to the point insight on the subject of Black eyed children with a brief summary of the information available on this subject..... every thing I expect from Wikipedia which I use a great deal kind regards Alan McConnell age 52 from Prestwick in Scotland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.17.240 (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject is likely notable, in its current form the article fails WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. DUE, it should be noted, is policy and trumps WP:N. All of which means that the article does not pass muster as written. I will keep an eye on the discussion and if/when the article is rewritten to resolve these issues I will be happy to reconsider my !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reexamining the article and giving it some thought, I no longer think that FRINGE can be reasonably applied in this case. The article is horribly written but I do think it passes, if barely, GNG. Under the circumstances I'd call this a weak Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:DUE has little to do with inclusion of a topic as an article on Wikipedia; rather, it covers how much weight should be given to various viewpoints within an article (pro and con, and so on). WP:V allows for articles about even fringe topics, if that topic has garnered enough coverage in reliable, third-party sources. WP:N is reliant on WP:V, and if there are enough reliable, third-party sources to verify the topic and establish notability, that is all that is required for the article to exist. 199.38.155.10 (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~When the subject of an article is FRINGE then DUE very definitely comes into play.~~ -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Like every ghost story, its completely silly, but its gotten a wide variety of coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal secondary source coverage over time. — Cirt (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~So you think it passes FRINGE and DUE as written?~~ -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - established spooky tabloid meme. Artw (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember running across that in our guidelines or policy. Could you post a link? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Only heard about them 6 months ago, and then read the Wikipedia article. I am One of Many (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2014 (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.