Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Jersey Paranormal Research


 * 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. As is customary, !votes have been discounted when users have attempted to !vote multiple times, as have !votes of very new and unregistered users. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

South Jersey Paranormal Research

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Has been tagged as not meeting WP:ORG since June, but no substantive edits have been made since September. Blueboy96 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * delete per no non-trivial mentions in any reliable secondary sources. Promotional blech.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: no references, other than to their own website. No indication of any particular prominence. If organisations could be speedied, this'd be a candidate. HrafnTalkStalk 12:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many instances of substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources.  For your purusing .  Sadly many require registration or payment, but the sources exist, which is the requirement of WP:N.  Wily D  12:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I must point out that WilyD is incorrect that SJPR's website "requires registration or payment" to view some of their media mentions. Links exist to those articles that are still posted by the media outlet who published them, but they don't post articles forever.  Where possible, SJPR has provided the articles in their Media Pages.  The only thing requiring payment on SJPR's website is access to their Adults Only Pages.  I think it is admirable that they take such steps to keep young people from accessing adult material. JennaBugg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaBugg (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * — JennaBugg (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GbT/c 09:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the ten google hits above merely establish that the group exists and has some members. Notability would require multiple reliable sources giving substantial coverage.  Springnuts (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources below from Jmundo don't offer substantial coverage either imo. Springnuts (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Using a highly nonstandard definition of substantial is very misleading. Compare "trivial" - many are obviously "nontrivial". Wily D  15:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG:"The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media." The Philadelphia Inquirer 1 is not a local source (Gloucester County, New Jersey has a population of 254,673)--Jmundo (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would most emphatically characterise Gloucester County (and the PI's Gloucester local news) as "local" rather than "regional". HrafnTalkStalk 17:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Meets WP:N. Subject is active and notable in the New Jersey area, 1, 2, 3 plus all the sources provided by WilyD, including the one from the Philadelphia Inquirer. --Jmundo (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ORG despite Jmundo's pleas. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Some evidence of notability. They've been cited repeatedly in the media and discussed to some extent. And who can argue that this work isn't vital? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who can argue this work is vital?. Nah, that's not really the point. The point is we are discussing whether SJPR as an entity justfies a Wikipedia article, not whether its ghostbusting or whatever is vital.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't see a reason to not follow the usual inclusion guidelines in this case, which should make this an easy keep, since there are multiple nontrivial discussions of the group in reliable publications. Wily D  15:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They didn't take the Ghostbusters seriously either until they really needed them...
 * "I don't like it" isn't a good argument at AfD, and the numerous citations from reliable sources clearly indicates this subject has notability. It's not a huge amount of notability, but it seems to be enough to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor making the above comment has an almost ghostly presence with only one visible edit apparent in their history... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently I disagree with some editors regarding the demarcation of trivial from substantial coverage. The sources presented parallel the results of my own investigation - there is some evidence that they have existed (and even gave a presentation at a local library!), but not that they should be treated here. No prejudice to recreation if they receive in depth coverage from reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There's coverage for the group going back to 2003. I added some of what seemed the most reliable sources I could find to the article, my opinion is a weak keep as I think they barely scrape in on notability standards due to the years of coverage, even if there's a debate as to whether it's regional or simply local. User:Raven1977 Talk to me My edits 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP This group is well established in the paranormal community, having survived well beyond other "groups" that have cropped up over the past couple of years. Although geography dictates they are a "local" group, their work is viewed world-wide.  They also manage to receive national media attention - not an easy feat.  They are also legitimately and legally incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, organized for research.  Their work HELPS people who are having difficulty dealing with paranormal activity.  They helped my family and my children and never asked for a single penny for their services.  The work they do is vital.  Unless you have had the need to call upon their services, I think the off-the-cuff comments made by some here are unfounded and derisory.  Although "ghost hunting" has become quite mainstream in recent years, the subject still manages to raise eyebrows.  This group has continued to act in a professional and dignified manner since their inception and I personally am eternally greatful for their assistance.  User: JennaBugg  —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete Definitely only received trivial, parochial coverage. Gain some fame and we'll write an article. The above arguments about the helpfulness of the organization are simply not valid keep reasons. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Close call, but with the sources in the article I'd say it's notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The sources are there to establish that the group has at least some sort of notability--now, ChildofMidnight may argue that the group's work is vital, but that's neither here nor there, and says more about her psychological condition than about the group. Raven's references border on the regional side of the regional/local divide, and this coverage is about as substantial as one can expect from that kind of paper. While reporters (hopefully) write this sort of thing tongue-in-cheek, they do write it, and their papers publish it. And so we do too! Drmies (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Frankly, I am surprised that this article would be up for deletion. I researched the group and South Jersey Paranormal Research is well-known not only in New Jersey, but also up and down the Eastern Seaboard as well. The group's founder, Susan Bove', is considered an expert in the field of electronic voice phenomena. Also, SJPR, from what I've read, is very involved with nonprofit organizations and helping out at fundraisers not to mention assisting families who are afraid of living in their homes. It sounds like they are experts at what they do, so why would you want to kick them off? I think that the group's mission and work are things that are of huge interest to the population, even though they were ahead of the game long before the other so-called paranormal groups came along and became hip.--User: twostarz_n_saturn  —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC).
 * But for many participants in this AfD discussion the problem is precisely notability, and while you may be right about how well known they are, you ought to be able to prove that also, by pointing to verifiable coverage. "It sounds like they are experts" is not exactly encyclopedic, and their charity, if unverified, may be noble but is not what decides if they stay or go. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A more issue to me is how Starz and Saturn came to find this discussion? It appears to be their only edit on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * '''Why is anyone questioning the validity of someone else's contribution to this discussion? Who cares if this person or that person only has one post under the name they used here?  Perhaps they have several names under which they operate.  And even if this is the only thing they ever post here, their opinions and views are just as valid as anyone else, who spends (way too much) time on Wikipedia, IMO.  Why does it matter how they found the page?  How did you find the page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaBugg (talk • contribs) 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It matters for the same reason that having people vote multiple times or under multiple identies in an election matters. It has to do with the integrity and validity of the process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete coverage is decidedly trivial; not notable. Fails WP:ORG. Verbal   chat  07:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep neutral article; references to several independent sources demonstrate notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep We at the | American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena have known Susan Bove' for many years and we consider her organization amongst the most representative of groups seeking a rational understanding of possibly "paranormal" experiences reported by people in their area. Lets face it, the subject is a frontier one compared to something like geology or archeology, and publications that cover it are not going to be mainstream. The question that needs to be asked is whether or not the group is a significant representative of their field and the answer is a definite "yes!" Tom Butler (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But you are not addressing the concerns expressed above. This is an encyclopedia, and "whether or not the group is a significant representative of their field" is not the question to ask--the question is, are they notable? and the answer should address the concerns and requirements in WP:N preferably in some detail. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did address the notability point. First, the AA-EVP has existed for 27 years as a leading group in EVP, one of the primary tools used by the South Jersey Paranormal Research. As an authoritative organization in the field, we the AA-EVP recognizes the group as being very notable. Second, I pointed out that it is not a mainstream organization and publications/organization recognizing SJPR should not themselves be held to the same standard as are groups in mainstream subjects.


 * The article may need to be filled in a little to make it more encyclopedic, but it clearly address a question about what is the SJPR and there are sufficient articles cited to show that the question has been asked enough to be covered in the media. Tom Butler (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability requires proof, mainstream or not. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable organization - fails WP:ORG. Sources provided only offer trivial coverage. -Atmoz (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * '''I will refrain from voting, since my opinion is obviously biased. This page was brought to my attention, and after reading through the posts, I felt the need to straighten out a point being made.  Springnuts mentions that SJPR's website got "10 google hits."  There would be no way, of course, for him to know how many hits the website receives and from what sources.  I routinely look at the back end of our website and Google is always the number one referrer for the more than 100,000 monthly hits SJPR's website gets.  These hits come from all over the world, including an average of .5% entering our site from this Wikipedia article.  These are the facts, so please don't speculate further.  SusanSJPR  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanSJPR (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hi SusanSJPR - I made no claim about the traffic to your website: the ten hits referred to is the number of hits Google comes up with on a search for "South Jersey Paranormal Research" (it actually says there are 11 hits, however if you click on page 2 the eleventh disappears). This number is often used as an initial indication of whether a topic is notable.  As for your being biased - that does not stop you 'voting' here - however we all need to do our best to ignore bias and write from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Join the debate!  Springnuts (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an interesting tool called | Yahoo Site Explorer, and for the | SJPR, it shows 841 pages and 406 links. As I understand it, This is an indication that the SJPR website is very popular and is providing meaningful content that is considered sufficiently valuable to warrant a link from other people's sites. Tom Butler (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not convinced that Number of links = Notability. There is a quality threshold. Springnuts (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Emphatic Keep: You're right, Springnuts. I guess I do deserve a vote and categorically do so :)  The members of my group and I work tirelessly to help everyone we encounter and the notability we have received is well deserved.  I also want to thank my esteemed colleague, Tom Butler, for his public acclaim of the work SJPR does.  I have nothing but the utmost respect for him and the AAEVP organization.  Lastly, I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at when Googling our name, but they can't mean that we only have 11 hits from that search engine.  We receive tens of thousands of hits through Google each and every month of the year. User:SusanSJPR  —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Hits you get through google are completely different from hits that google shows when you google the subject. What you are talking about is how many people come to your website through google. What we are talking about is how many other websites mention you according to google. See the difference? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 12 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.