Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dybbuk box

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dybbuk box

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insufficiently notable fraud. For something as unlikely as thism eveb the LATimes & the Forward aren;t enough. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found this article due to finding a skeptical article about the legend by investigator Kenny Biddle in Skeptical Inquirer, and added that info here. I did wonder if the article should be deleted, but instead decided to attempt to improve it. Why delete it now? This story spawned a Hollywood film after all. That does seem to make it at least borderline notable. RobP (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just read the article for the film based on this legend, and it references this very page in the lead. I just added a small section there summarizing the skeptical content in THIS article as well. If this article gets deleted, I would like more of its contents to be moved to that article, but I fear that will not be approved -- as that article is primarily about the film. RobP (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep and rewrite. This trashy pop-culture story has unfortunately gotten a lot of traction in normally reliable sources (example). There is a case to be made that the bulk of the coverage is WP:SENSATIONAL and not serious journalism, but unless there’s consensus to deprecate the sources, it’s moot. The article needs a rewrite, it should summarize claims rather than indulge in meticulously detailed narratives from the claimant's perspective that read like adolescent creepypasta. WP:FRINGE applies here, so WP:PARITY warrants skeptical sources can be used to shift the article weight decisively towards reality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Keep as well. I agree with LuckyLouie. I have been coming across some articles online about them. I was about to add some info to the page when I saw the Afd. I noticed that the Dybbuk page needs a rewrite as well. Would it be an idea to combine the two and have the Dybbuk box as a heading within the article? Either way I think this information should be kept.Alhill42 (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add the [[Category:Paranormal hoaxes]] template at page bottom (intentionally de-wikified here). 5Q5|^✉ 14:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are wikipedia articles written in Hebrew about this as well, which are sourced. https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes.ovall (talk • contribs) 04:10, 31 March 2021 (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.