Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mist (paranormal)

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. — Aitias // discussion 00:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mist (paranormal)[edit]

Seriously? This is not a recognized phenomenon and I couldn't find third-party independent sources who acknowledged this was a common meme to be noted. Ghost hunter terminology clearinghouse Wikipedia is not. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strangely enough I agree. Spooky! Artw (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just, delete. Really. --Ged UK (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a fairly common theme in evaluation of photographs that are claimed to be of ghosts. References are available in Goodwyn Ghost Worlds Llewellyn Worldwide 2007, Karl & World An Illustrated History of the Haunted World New Holland 2007(which provides some non-supernatural explanations for the appearance of this phenomenon), Hines Gateway of the Gods Numina Media Arts 2007, Warren How to Hunt Ghosts: A Practical Guide Simon & Schuster 2003, and numerous other similar books. Needs to be edited to reflect both viewpoints of it (i.e. that while it is interpreted by some as a supernatural phenomenon, it is regarded by others as explained by one of several possible scientific explanations), but this should be easily possible with the sources I have identified above. JulesH (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Must agree with JulesH. Suggest strong clean up. Who ya gonna call?! Computerjoe 's talk 11:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, although I suppose it is faintly possible this "information" belongs in another article. ClovisPt (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Ghost hunting. That article already mentions mist, so a merge would probably just be a redirect. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources at all, ugh. --Peephole (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read AFD discussions before writing on them. Then you would see the sources cited by JulesH above. Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge on basis of non-notability. Probably a redirect would do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. BBiiis08 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read AFD discussions before writing on them. Then you would see the sources cited by JulesH above. Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the sources cited above, there's also pages 158–160 of ISBN 9780813191249, which debunks several oft-cited examples of this mist. There are plenty of sources to be had, on both sides of the issue. There are even sources in the pro-paranormal camp that point out how many such images have mundane explanations, such as page 194 of ISBN 9780978559106 and pages 52–54 of ISBN 9780557027729. ScienceApologist clearly hasn't looked for sources at all, despite xyr claims to the contrary. Several other editors clearly haven't even read the AFD discussion that they are adding to. There seem to be a lot of no-effort rationales here. I suspect that (alas!) a desire to push a point of view is overriding the correct approach to writing an encyclopaedia, and the correct approach to AFD, which is finding, reading, evaluating, and using sources. One only has to look at Orb (photographic) (which used to be Orb (paranormal), note) to see the potential here for this subject, given the sources at hand (which are not even all of the sources available). This is a stub with scope for expansion. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we do not delete in such cases. Zero points to the nominator for once again putting zero effort into improving articles on subjects that xe does not like, but instead actively working towards lessening the encyclopaedia by removing them. Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If no serious discussion of this "phenomenon" aside from passing mentions in the books cited above exists, then there's not enough coverage to base an article on. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who said anything about passing mentions? Pages 52–54, for example, is certainly not a "passing mention". Neither is pages 158–160. Minus several points for reaching in order to attempt to save a discredited argument. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination has been shown to be wrong about the existence of sources, notice. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What precisely should I be noticing? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references, and they are especially needed in a case like this. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read AFD discussions before writing on them. Then you would see the sources cited above. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 24 February 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.