Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specter of Newby Church


 * 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Specter of Newby Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability for this ghost and it appears to be a hoax Frmorrison (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I've rewritten the thing and added sources and the image itself. This is one of the most famous 'ghost' pictures ever taken. If somebody could find a way to delicately end the last paragraph with 'there is no such thing as a ghost' whilst remaining pleasant, it would be appreciated. It's just hard to find mainstream sources for these things, even when overwhelmingly culturally relevant. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would edit it myself but I'm too scared to look! Thincat (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Query - Frmorrison, which part appears to be a hoax? The photo itself or the existence of the photo at all? That the photo itself might be a hoax is irrelevant if the hoax itself is notable. If you are suggesting no such photo exists and that this article is a WP:HOAX, that's different.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the picture is a hoax, but if people have written about (previously there were no references or pictures) the article may be notable. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, right, understood. Yeah, I'm probably with Panyd in terms of notability - weak keep. But I totally get why it was nominated.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 14:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep - Updating, I can see this has been floating around since 2009...if someone can get their hands on the magazine referenced in here to view, then I would be convinced it's a real article on wiki, not a hoax made by people scamming the wiki. --  IamM1rv (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)IamM1rv (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, unless the fabric of the universe has been ripped I think we can all safely assume this isn't actually a ghost. A quick Google will tell you this particular story and photograph go together and are 'for realsies' though. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Well, unless the fabric of the universe has been ripped I think we can all safely assume this isn't actually a ghost." ... Irrelevant to the article or lacking neutrality --  IamM1rv (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But not, I feel, irrelevant to the original suggestion that the article may be a hoax. As there was initially some confusion over what criteria we use to judge something a 'hoax' - a light response seemed fine. I think you'll find my coverage (and original re-write of this article), quite up to par neutrality wise.  PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:35, 15 April 2015 (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.