Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STPRI Hysteria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] STPRI Hysteria
Non notable phenomenon, 9 unique google hits, ones with context appear to be forums and blogs. Delete as unverifiable, non-notable cruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:46, Jan. 26, 2006
- Weak Keep as a verifiable example of mass hysteria comparable to Monkey-man of New Delhi. --Lockley 07:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comparable? On a 1:150 scale, maybe. [1]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:45, Jan. 26, 2006
- Delete - comparable to something not very encyclopedic -- Femmina 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete While something akin to the article's description does appear to have happened, this is a minor incident that hardly deserves its own encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 11:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The references are all forums and blogs .8 of the 11 references are from the same blog. A further two are exact copies of one of these stories, but then hosted on a different blog (note the reference on the Farshores.org one). I wouldn't really consider these verifiable, and they are not backed up themselves by anything reputable or verifiable. It's supposedly the true story about a couple of students playing a ouija board game that (cough cough) 'led to the calling up of 43,000 djinns' and 'one student being exorcised'. It's teetering on the edge of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. If it hasn't been made up for Wikipedia, it's been made up somewhere along the line. Proto t c 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Proto you've convinced me, thanks for your opinion. There's a difference between describing an incident of collective hysteria, which is valid and encyclopedic, and buying into the premise, i.e. believing in monkeymen and djinns, which is not. That's what I was trying to convey above. --Lockley 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn crap. incog 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn made up junk Cptchipjew 02:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-verifiable local incident. --timecop 06:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic, non-notable. *drew 16:17, 30 January 2006 (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.
