Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reported haunting of Alcatraz (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 Speedy Keep. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Reported haunting of Alcatraz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is the recreation of an article deleted mere days ago. It is an enlarged mish-mash of synthesis and misattribution of reliable sources ammalgamated with unreliable accounts of fringe views, ghost hunters and paranormalists. Kudos to the authors for trying really hard to make this look like an article, but the topic itself is inherently non-notable. At most the sources document that Alcatraz has a spooky atmosphere. Spooky does not equal haunted. An alternative to deletion would be to move the article to a neutral, non-weasel word title, such as Alcatraz legends and refocus accordingly. That would be a different, and possibly acceptable, article. Jehochman Talk 13:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Pointy nomination based on an invalid WP:FRINGE theory. Article was originally deleted without me being informed of the AFD and the consensus to delete was not apparent as had been claimed. Alcatraz has been cited in numerous reliable publications as allegedly one of the world's most haunted locations, it passes GNG with flying colours.. It is such a subject that it has at least 3 books dedicated solely to Haunted Alcatraz and countless books documenting it as being notable for ghosts. A search on a major newspaper archive picked up 2747 articles for it in newspapers, magazines and journals. JSTOR sources document something known as the "Alcatraz effect" in relation to psychology and also well document the Native American superstition to the island. As an encyclopedia it is not our job to decide whether ghosts exist or not but to reflect in summary what has been widely documented already. This is such a subject and the article is entirely written in a way which says "reputed" and and "alleged" and in no way tries to claim it as fact. We widely accept articles which document theories, folklore and superstition. It is clearly a notable subject and one which I think will provide a lot of interest to many editors. As for "enlarged mish-mash of synthesis", most of wikipedia is written that way finding scraps from various sources and if you check all of the sources you'll see no original research or problems with verification. This is a respectable entry for such a subject and better already than most of our articles on similar topics and I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not pointy to request deletion of an article recreated mere days after it was deleted, with all the same flaws, only in greater volume. Native American superstition is not necessarily "haunted". You appear to be overlaying your prefered interpretation of something that cannot be falsified by science.  Rather than saying "haunted" would you be willing to move this to "legends" and let the sources speak for themselves, rather than attempting to synthesize what they say into support for your own opinion? Jehochman Talk 13:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Legends of Alcatraz I'd accept (and have moved, hope this is OK with the nom) and the island has a long history of superstition. It would definitely be made more encyclopedic if somebody could find those JSTOR sources and expand it with that. But the article in no way tries to claim ghosts exist. But a lot of people have reported and made claims about it in a lot of sources so documenting it in my opinion makes it notable. I believe I've done so neutrally using terms like "alleged" and "reputed" to write it without ever making it anything more than claims. I think you'd be surprised how many people would come here looking for information on it and would be interested in reading it. I have said that the National Park service have dismissed it as ridiculous, it's not as if we're treating the actual haunting as fact. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am happy to document legends that are notable. I recommend not calling everything haunted because each legend may have it's own flavor.  Check this link: http://www.travelchannel.com/tv-shows/legends-of-alcatraz.  Jehochman Talk 13:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There are lots of WP:RS that are part of the superstitious beliefs of tourists. I rather doubt there will be reliable evidence of spectral presence in the prison.  But we are not triers of the veracity of the claims, even if some might characterize it as a fringe theory.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - for the same reasons above by 7&amp;6=thirteen. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * keep Many legends are highly notable, and this is one of them. Multiple books, movies, articles written about this specific issue. 14:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep. There are many RS on the notable legends of Alcatraz. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. There are many notable legends, many sources. At least three books, Ghostly Alcatraz Island (2010), Ghosts of Alcatraz (2008) and Haunted Alcatraz (1998) are devoted to the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just bought Ghosts of Alcatraz by Kathryn Vercillo. Look forward to reading it!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I voted "Merge" in the previous AfD, but given the addition of new sources and the renaming to Legends of Alcatraz, I can now agree that the topic is sufficiently encyclopedic to be the subject of its own article.  One suggestion I would offer though is to expand the article's discussion beyond accounts of paranormal phenomena to cover other genres of notable legends surrounding Alcatraz (e.g. perhaps legends surrounding notable escape attempts?). --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Start posting your deletion banners on these mythology articles and see how far you get. This article is certainly within that scope. --   Cassianto Talk    16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep on this, as per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with closing this now that the article has been moved and improved. Whoever is uninvolved and good at the mechanics of deletion discussions can take care of it. Jehochman Talk 18:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2013 (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.