Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CASPR

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. Majorly 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CASPR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Non-notable paranormal research group in Arkansas. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Virginia Ghost Hunters for a similar situation with another non db-group candidate ghost hunting organization.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article does not assert notability. Naconkantari 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:RS (indeed no sources), WP:V, and WP:NOTE. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. The ghost hunting craze has driven many such hobbyist orgs (and individuals who are self-proclaimed "paranormal researchers") into a frenzy of self-publicity. This group is just one of many exploring WP as a means to self-publicize. See also other questionable articles:

• Central_Oklahoma_Paranormal_Studies
• Janice_Oberding
• Vincent_Wilson
• PSICAN
• Brent_Fair
• Jimmy_Lowery
• Ghost_Tours_UK
• AGHOST
• Chip_Coffey
• Supernatural_Summit_Ghost_Hunter_Conference_Batavia_NY
• Paranormal_Society

--- LuckyLouie 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean this CASPR, which issued a press release when Larry Flaxman got himself listed on wikipedia ? Delete per Flaxman (Flaxman was speedy deleted 3 times). It does not seem to have any notability except at a local level. All but one press article is trivial, and the organisation seems only to rear its head most at halloween time on local radio stations. Ohconfucius 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article nominated... unless some evidence that the group passes some kind of basic notability test. ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

• Delete - Poor non-notable ‘paranormal investigation’ articles undermine the importance of the parapsychology subject area on Wikipedia. - Solar 22:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per Ohconfucius's PDF of Flaxman's press release. That's just plain exploitative, and I'm actually for some paranormal groups being listed (the notable ones). --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per Ohconfucius. Not big enough to be notable. Totnesmartin 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the AGHOST entry. It has been recommended by Steel359 that I plead my case for the AGHOST entry here, as it's recently been deleted. I've read the notability guidelines thoroughly, and unlike many of the other "ghost hunting" or "paranormal research" groups out there I believe AGHOST actually has established significant notability in its field. The group has existed for more than 5-years and is a non-profit organization, which is unique among these groups. It also has had a great deal of press, including national (US) press, links to which I added to the article specifically to establish notability. The page http://www.aghost.us/106.html from the organization's website lists links to some of the media attention it has received. Briefly, some of media includes the Seattle Times, the Oregonian, and ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1347154). Thanks, Obsid 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.