Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs

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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs[edit]

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

(also The Licked Hand) There is no indication of these stories' notability, nor are there any substantinve references. Equally, very little substantively establishes the content/titles. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you consider the reference in The Licked Hand to be substantive? And did you check out the five books sources that are cited by the Snopes article linked from The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs, and which I pointed out when I contested the prod? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that individual urban legends (even those documented on such an esteemed source as Snopes) are automatically notable. And the threshold of verifiability is not that Snopes lists some possibly adequate sources; it is that the Wikipedia page lists them. If you wish to work on improving either page, that is of course permitted. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 15:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has claimed that urban legends are automatically notable, and I'm not claiming that a Snopes article by itself confers notability, but the sources on which the Snopes coverage is based would appear to. The threshold is that the sources exist, not that they are cited. I would point out that it's also permitted for you to improve the article, particularly as you are the one who is unhappy with its current state. You didn't respond to my question about the reference in The Licked Hand. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one "reference" seems to be fundamentally identical to Snopes, in that it is a book solely documenting some urban legends – a fairly frivolous book, by the look of the cover, and (since I can't afford the £10 to buy a copy) doesn't appear to represent a relaible source, to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 15:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, books by Jan Harold Brunvand (such as The Choking Doberman) are among the most reliable sources on urban legends. Brunvand pioneered the academic study of urban legends as folklore. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get the logic here. Of course urban legends will be discussed in books about urban legends, rather than in books about quantum mechanics or tropical fish. And, as Metropolitan90 has pointed out, this book is written by one of the world's leading academic authorities (if not the leading authority) on urban legends. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "a fairly frivolous book, by the look of the cover" - you're having us on, right? And "(since I can't afford the £10 to buy a copy) doesn't appear to represent a reliable source" - it's a novel and entertaining suggestion that we should judge the reliability of sources by how much we would fancy shelling out to own them. I guess that rules out the First Folio, among many others ... --Paularblaster (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a notable urban legend. Books collecting urban legends feature it. Opinions about these types of books are not relevant. And it is listed at Snopes, quite a notable website. Plus the story is notable enough to be covered in other media, the movie Scream, etc. Dream Focus 18:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Licked Hand is a totally different unrelated story. The two AFD should not have been combined. Keep it also, since it was notable enough to be featured in other media. Dream Focus 18:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to what?! They are both urban legends, both (IMO) non-notable, why list them separately? ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are unrelated to each other. That's like listing two unrelated television shows because they are both on television and science fiction, or listing two unrelated romance novels from different writers because you think all romance novels are the same. Dream Focus 18:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not unrelated to each other. The rationale for deletion is the same, they cover almost identical material (stupid made-up pseudo-scary fiction). ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 19:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) The point is that the notability of these two urban legends is unrelated, unless you think that no urban legend can possibly be notable. In general multiple articles should only be nominated jointly if they stand or fall together, for example if they rely on exactly the same sources or they are players for the same football team whose claim to notability is only that they have played for that team. Having said that, I don't really see the harm in discussing these two together, as there are only two and it's unlikely that anyone would have a different opinion about one than the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both; unnotable typical scary story scenarios. I wouldn't even really them urban legends. A single mention of the stories in a single book and repeated on Snopes (or visa versa) does not make them notable. Neither has actually received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Only a minor mention in a long list of known ones and the one mention on an urban legend site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after second edit conflict) Actually Snopes gives five book sources for The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs, so it has not only been discussed by a single source. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the references themselves to see what the book's say? Are they actually discussions, or just reprints or a one-line mention? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just in case my position isn't clear from my comments above. I know that AfD is not supposed to be a vote, but, just recently, many AfDs seem to have been closed based on vote-counting rather than arguments so I'd better get that word in in bold. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist. Urban legends are ascertainably a distinct field of academic study and of amateur interest, so our POV as to how frivolous this interest is matters not at all. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable urban myth/legend. Per above. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a substantive reference to the article which demonstrates the topic's notability. AFD is not an article improvement service - the nominator should please search for sources and attend to the matter himself per our deletion process before wasting the time of numerous editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out The Licked Hand and had no difficulty finding another good source for that too. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~The Licked Hand (I haven't yet had a chance to review the other)~~ both. I've added another published source to The Licked Hand. It's not the weightiest tome in the world, but I think it's good enough. Searching for the alternate title, "The Doggy Lick", also turns up this, which appears to be a heavyweight academic reference, tracing the legend's roots to the 16th century CE. I haven't yet added it to the article because I haven't seen a copy, and don't want to cite it on the strength of a Google Books snippet view. But to me it suggests that this subject is encyclopedic and notable. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've now added two academic sources to The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs, which I believe satisfies notability requirements as well. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:26, 17 November 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.