Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woman in Black (supernatural)

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. Seems like the arguments in favour of the topic being notable are carrying the day as there is little evidence of - quote Spinningspark - "embellishment and circular referencing". At the same time, the concerns raised by ST47 probably merit a maintenance tag on the article, so going for that as well and a post to WP:FTN where they are experienced and cleaning up potentially problematic Forteana articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woman in Black (supernatural)

Woman in Black (supernatural) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Notabililty. Qwirkle (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources appear to be particularly reliable. "Virginia Creeper" appears to be a personal blog, not a real magazine. The several books of ghost stories are almost certainly highly embellished to sensationalize the supernatural and possibly circular references. Not anything written down as "Hauntings, Strange Happenings, and Other Local Lore" is notable. Reywas92^Talk 07:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I suspect there is some confusion between unreliable and unscientific going on here. The sources aren't so bad. The most accessible souce that I looked at, The Big Book of Virginia Ghost Stories, is published by Stackpole Books, a well established publisher. The author cites the story to named, contemporary newspapers. On the face of it, it is a reliable source, from a reliable publisher, providing secondary analysis from primary sources. Frankly, for a subject such as this, we couldn't ask for a better source. Accusations of embellishment and circular referencing need some evidence before we start rejecting putative reliable sources. SpinningSpark 17:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I wrote the article, because it appeals to the folklore and superstitions and ghost stories of Appalachia. There are a number of different sources for the phantom which appeared at different times and different places, in different states, sometimes for good and sometimes not. It is a short but accurate article. The fact that the stories of the woman in black are over a hundred years old, and still told by the Roanoke Times, shows current interest. And of course, this is what Wikipedia is for- the inclusion of information that is not usually found in other printed encyclopedias, but in a larger, online version, that can be used as a springboard for further investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadden (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but needs work. The article is written as though 1) the sightings are true, and 2) the sightings are all of the same, real, thing. If this was a topic from a work of fiction, I'd say it's written too much "in-universe". The sourcing is fine, it's notable as a supernatural phenomenon, however it's written as though there's an actual being named "Woman in Black", not a few old ghost stories with similar features. ST47 (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but agree with ST47. /Julle (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2019 (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.