Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Paranormal Investigators (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The Helpful  One  12:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Asia Paranormal Investigators
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not established regarding the organization; the article also contains unreferenced materials; advertising or unnecessary promotion of a group; many of the "sources" are broken links. There are far too many fringe and non-notable paranormal investigation "organizations" or groups that contain not even a trace amount of notability or claim to fame -- and having a mention in a news article or magazine does not make one notable. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating as his biographical entry does not explicitly state why he is notable. Much of the content derived on the biographical page is copied from the Asia Paranormal Investigators page. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not notable. Delete. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not see any notability. Delete. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established by references to a large number of articles covering the group. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the group--many of the references refer only to Goh, not the group; some of them appear to be so closely worded as to be either copies or PR placements. As for the man, I'm not sure, and would prefer him to be renominated separately after this closes. DGG (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * delete many of the "cites" on that page (for instance one that claims to cite the Straits Times, the biggest paper in singapore) are dead, don't work, mendacious, unclear. This looks like a trivial student prank, at best, or at worst a local group of kooks who've made it into the "on a lighter side" sections of the media in a small and rather dull country of 3 million people. Not notable, not verifiable, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be speedy? It was a strait delete last time... looking into it.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and the photo should be eight-sixed too. -Yupik (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable organization (clearly). ScienceApologist (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - enough media references for the group itself to prove notability. --Blowdart | talk 08:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep neutral article, enough third-party sources to establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: Minor fame or infamy is not notability, something which often gets forgotten in these discussions. There seems to be a common trends in these votes that if someone has had something printed about them by a few sources, they should have an encyclopedia entry.  This is simply wrong, and against the guidelines laid out on the notability pages.  And no offense to anyone, and I mean this with the best faith possible, but the combination of the title and the picture in an encyclopedic article just serves to make Wikipedia a laughing stock. Phil153 (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Article rewritten to fix broken links and more references added so sources are verifiable. Singapore Tourism Board currently recommend joining their spooky tour as one of the 20 unique things to do in Singapore. Please see references in article for this and related TV shows, programmes, newspapers reports for evidence of notability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firet (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * *cmt A singapore tourism board boost SPA? That's advertising, not evidence of notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.