Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black mass (paranormal entity)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Black mass (paranormal entity)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

According to the article, this is some kind of "entity" that is "debated within paranormal circles", however the sources are TV shows and Ghost enthusiast web sites. Fails WP:N, no WP:RS reliable sources found for this term. No reliable sources found to verify notability. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Originally proposed a merge but a deletion would be better. Not notable.Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward keep by default per "non-notable" not being a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that that link leads to an essay which enjoys limited support, the link says that stating "not notable" and absolutely nothing else is a poor reason for deletion. It does not, despite your many attempts to make out otherwise, say that "any argument that uses the words 'not' and 'notable' together is invalid". Stifle (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Notability" has even less support. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which, at the top of the page, says "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". Perhaps you've referred so many people to it that you've forgotten its actual meaning? Stifle (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case it is to an account who admittedly indiscriminately says to delete everything and is closed minded to the point of never argueing to keep (yes, I typically argue to keep, but I have argued and even nominated dozens of articles for deletion). In this case, it really is a matter of just saying "per nom" for the sake of getting in another delete vote rather than actual argument.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps this should be relisted to generate more discussion... embarassed but I don't know how to do that.Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If, after a week, an administrator determines that the discussion has been insufficient, they will relist it at that stage. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article show little content and a lot of fluff, it misses something with encyclopaedic value (e.g. defintion). I am not convinced this article is about a paranormal entity, looks like an abstract concept used in fiction and story telling (something dark representing the evil or unknown). 83.254.210.47 (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Two of the four references appear to be fiction and two appear to be claims of sightings of the phenomenon. Here is a photo of a black mass. :p Simonm223 (talk) 02:34, 21 September 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.