Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smurl haunting


 * 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   no consensus. There is no clear consensus here. However, there is no prejudice against a speedy renomination --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Smurl haunting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article naming living persons who were supposedly the basis for a TV movie about an alleged haunting. No reliable sources cited for lavishly detailed claims ranging from sexual assault to demonic possession to death from drug overdose. Delete per WP:BLP and WP:VER. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Clearly an example WP:OSTRICH or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not only was a film made about the event, it is also covered in the book by Robert Curran. It is also covered extensively as a hoax which need to be noted in the article. There are also several other book written by Ed and Lorraine Warren however those would not be consider thrid party sources.


 * This was also covered by CBS's Entertainment Tonight, as well as covered by a list of secondary sources:


 * Buffalo News, August 27, 1986
 * Scrantonian Tribune, November 2, 1986
 * The Skeptical Inquirer 11, Winter 1986-87
 * Pittsburgh Post Gazette, August 25, 1986
 * The Haunted, Jack Smurl, 1988
 * The Haunted, Movie, 1991 Valoem   talk  20:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If the TV movie and the book doesn't even meet WP:GNG to qualify for its own article, why does the "haunting" itself? Citing the names (only) of a few newspapers isn't very convincing, and passing mention on Entertainment Tonight isn't an indicator of serious, in-depth coverage and wide notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A clear bias is being shown here. The book alone passes WP:GNG:

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Valoem  talk  15:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, neither the book nor the TV movie have their own article, and on the basis of limited coverage in the few sources suggested (but not confirmed), the "haunting" itself is only notable enough to warrant a paragraph in the Ed and Lorraine Warren article. A separate "Smurl haunting" article might be justified if the story should gain wider notability in the future. (PS: repeatedly accusing another editor of personal bias doesn't help your case.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bias is shown when an editor purposely distorts the truth of a situation in an attempt to sway others. I am merely informing other editors of a possible bias. WP:GNG clearly states that a reliable source encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. The books do not need to have published sources on them and is not a requirement in WP:GNG. However the fact and the haunting itself has an availability of secondary sources covering the subject (such as a book, a film, and skeptic magazine articles) should affirm that the article at least passes notability guidelines. Valoem   talk  18:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although lacking inline citations, the author has apparently based the article on solid reliable sources. Any statements which may impinge on BLP issues should be clearly referenced with inline citations or be removed though. __meco (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Userfy until inline citations are provided. Article makes a number of extraordinary claims, but provides no citations - only a list of sources which are supposedly about the subject, with no links and no way to tell what is and isn't supported by those sources. (I'm betting that the article at Skeptical Inquirer is a debunking, not a confirmation.) As it stands, it is simply a ghost story. It would harm Wikipedia's credibility to let something like this stay here without citation to third party sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2010 (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.