497:: the user who sighted the Museum of Hoaxes makes it seem that just because it is discussed there thestory must be a hoax. the original informant has never claimed his sotry was a hoax and further, has stood behind it. I'm not saying they are real. What I am saying is that Modern legends and folklore have a place on wikipedia. This one is notable enough to stay in my opinion. The original report sparked quite a disucssion. You may wish to call this an internet meme if you like but I feel it is notable american folklore. Calling something a hoax just because you don't personally believe it does not make it a hoax. Seeking out every piece of folklore you don't buy and nominating it for deletion won't make that story go away. Let the article stay and then we can work on improving it and comparing it to other folklore of a similiar nature.
418:: This is a topic in popular culture and urban legend/lore, scientific evidence is not required as it is basically an oral tradition (Beliefs in popular culture can exist completely independently from science). WP:RS should also be applied accordingly, meaning that all that is really needed is evidence that it is a real urban myth, not that it is a real phenomona. Any print published source should do for these purposes. Local newspapers, books on urban legend etc. -
653:
with rewrite; I'm encouraged by the fact that there hasn't been an outcry from the quarters that I mentioned above. It's a pity that one of the better sources from an older version, which also had more of an 'urban legend' perspecitve, is a 404 now, though. And incidentally, in my opinion at least,
556:
As we don't know what exactly Bethel experienced, if anything, it's entirely possible that he managed to get himself worked up over a couple of slightly creepy but otherwise normal kids. The fact that the museum of hoaxes has a page on it does not make the term accurate. It may be your opinion that
525:
and all kinds of spooky things. They are quoted and used in many stories over the centuries and belong here. Black Eyed Kids is NOT the same, has nothing near the millions of camp fire stories told, thousands of stories published and overall universal acceptance that these have. It *is* based on a
217:
While the new article is better, it doesn't address the issue and my points. No matter how you organize the information, and no matter how poetic the verse, the topic itself is still not notable, and no rewrite can fix that. At the end of the day, it is still based on a hoax, and the hoax never got
607:
As of 2007-08-11, this page has been completely re written to be about the myth rather than about Bethel's encounter. It has also been sourced to a third party analysis of the myth which takes a skeptical view. Thus any deletion nominations made against the old version (prior to a third party source
445:
No offense, but how hard have you looked? I mean, have you tried looking at some of the regional urbn myth magazines/books out there. Also, as this is an urban legend in popular culture, rather than something that is attesting to having scientific merit, WP:RS can be much looser (Peer review etc is
455:
I have looked and read many references, and many read as "this is something we haven't heard of before, but someone says it is popular". Personally, I am pretty lax about accepting nominal press as wp:v but most are asking about it, not telling about it. It is still a hoax that never got legs.
341:
The problem, as it was during the last AFD, is that the article keeps drifting back towards treating the subject as an actual, undeniable phenomenon, rather than as folklore. Since I've long since gotten tired of the argument and can't be bothered to deal with members of the tinfoil hat crew who
185:
is an essay with no official standing in
Knowledge, it also does not apply to urban legend as they are required only to be "verifiable myths", not "verifiable truths". Also, the usenet account is WP:V of the original content of the myth, not WP:V of the truth of the myth. Therefore it is self
186:
referencing and self authoritating, a person's own account is always WP:V for them having made a statement regardless of whether it is not it is WP:RS for the truth of the statement itself (X is proof that Y said Z, rather than X is proof that Y was telling the truth about Z). -
632:
Given that the source takes a skeptical approach, does not promote the topic, and that it treats it as an urban myth, there is no logical reason why it should not count as a reliable source. After all, it's discussing an urban myth, not hard science, so the
551:
I'm going to have to take issue with your repeated use of the word 'hoax.' I'm not saying Bethel's story was true, but 'hoax' implies that a) the story has been conclusively disproved, and b)the originator of the story was actually
317:- As far as we know, this could be a prank, or nonsense. There are quite a few forums and websites discussing this, so I think that the topic does deserve to be mentioned in an article about ghosts/ paranormal phenomena etc. --
393:
The article makes no false claims that the phenomenon is anything but "reported". It is a subject that regularly appears in sources regarding the paranormal and related topics. Sourcing, however, is needed.
618:
Thanks for working on the article, perfectblue - you have certainly dramatically improved it. I'm not an expert on what constitutes a reliable source on wikipedia; I'll let an administrator decide whether
78:
73:
526:
hoax, few have heard of it, fewer still care about it, and NO major publications have ever even mentioned the term, even in jest in their holloween day coverage. THAT is the issue, that it doesn't meet
288:
As stated, it lacks sources. It seems like it might be possibly worth adding a short section on this to some other article (if better sources can be found), but it doesn't deserve a full article.
623:("UFO Digest provides video proof of ufos, alien abduction and the paranormal") is one. If it is, then the article should probably survive; if not, I believe the AfD should succeed.
465:
This is still a regular topic for discussion, 10 years after the original story was posted on the internet. I'd say that a 10 year lifespan for a web myth is pretty sound. -
427:
The problem is that there are no reliable sources. Your suggestions of local newspapers or books are good, but I don't believe any exist, so the article will always fail
446:
completely unnecessary in cases such as this, as citations are basically used only to confirm that the myth is a genuine myth, not that the myth has any truth to it). -
133:
68:
355:
I would completely agree, were it a widely-recognised piece of folklore. I feel that even if it were rewritten with the POV-pushing removed, it would fail
205:
was the most interesting link I found, and it wasn't. Hoax type stuff, made up years ago and never became popular enough in ghost stories to be notable.
654:
an AFD 'succeeds' whenever it closes in a decision that benefits the project, whether that decision is to delete or keep the article in question. --
513:
Hoaxes and folklore very often are notable, and are encyclopedia worthy. I didn't say hoaxes have no place, and in fact, I believe the opposite.
342:
bristle at phrases like 'Urban Legend', I won't argue for the article to be kept, but I do want to say that I don't think it's unsalvageable. --
408:
106:
101:
110:
724:
705:
697:. This is another article that is essentially OR. Take a doubtful concept, link it with a couple of references and pad it out with
689:
662:
641:
627:
612:
590:
565:
546:
501:
489:
469:
460:
450:
434:
422:
381:
366:
350:
333:
309:
292:
272:
263:
254:
238:
222:
209:
190:
173:
156:
51:
93:
17:
680:
324:
608:
being added) should not be counted against the new version unless they have been restated as applying post 2007-08-11.
701:. Without some serious sources, which haven't shown up to date, it should be removed from a serious encyclopedia.
739:
36:
738:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
404:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
670:
but keep non-the-less. Seems like a valid urban legend but I'd really like to see some more sources. ---
400:
396:
97:
328:
318:
638:
609:
466:
447:
419:
378:
260:
187:
170:
166:
301:
713:
I don't think the rewrite eliminates the problem that there are no reliable published sources.
702:
676:
498:
289:
269:
251:
235:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
485:
as per nomination, fails verifiability requirements by lacking non-trivial reliable sources.
202:
583:
539:
182:
89:
57:
48:
659:
562:
347:
305:
720:
684:
587:
543:
457:
219:
206:
698:
671:
634:
579:
535:
149:
377:
It is now sourced to a third party and has been re written as an an urban myth. -
127:
575:
571:
531:
527:
428:
360:
356:
145:
141:
637:
required is far more relaxed than it would be for, say, a page about quasar. -
655:
624:
558:
431:
363:
343:
153:
259:
It's an urban myth, what exactly are you expecting, peer review science? -
715:
165:
A ten-year-old Usenet posting is not a reliable source. The article is
522:
518:
514:
152:. The main source seems to be a story someone posted on Usenet.
140:
Previous AfD ended "without consensus". I feel the article fails
732:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
620:
203:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4320/
586:
changes that. Staying on topic, THOSE are the issues.
486:
123:
119:
115:
578:
because there are zero reliable sources as defined by
557:
it was a hoax, but please don't state it as fact. --
79:
Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (3rd nomination)
74:
Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (2nd nomination)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
570:Ok, then it is not a hoax. It still doesn't meet
742:). No further edits should be made to this page.
250:- my original comment still applies in my view.
8:
538:. These are real issues that no amount of
268:UFO Digest doesn't cut it in my opinion.
218:enough traction to be notable by itself.
66:
234:lacks non-trivial verifiable sources.
69:Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids
7:
64:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
725:23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
706:23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
690:01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
663:18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
642:06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
628:22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
613:11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
591:12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
566:17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
547:16:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
502:16:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
490:01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
470:06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
461:22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
451:10:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
435:17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
423:16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
382:12:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
273:17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
264:20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
255:16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
223:21:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
191:11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
52:13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
759:
367:11:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
351:01:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
334:00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
310:21:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
293:21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
248:Still Delete with Re-Write
239:20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
215:Still Delete with Re-Write
210:20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
174:19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
157:19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
735:Please do not modify it.
574:, can't be verified via
530:and can't possibly meet
32:Please do not modify it.
63:AfDs for this article:
517:are folklore, as are
399:comment was added by
582:, and no amount of
148:and also smacks of
542:is going to fix.
534:as there are zero
511:Just a quick note:
688:
412:
332:
167:complete bollocks
750:
737:
674:
540:"But I like it!"
394:
323:
131:
113:
34:
758:
757:
753:
752:
751:
749:
748:
747:
746:
740:deletion review
733:
605:
395:—The preceding
331:
104:
90:Black Eyed Kids
88:
85:
83:
61:
58:Black Eyed Kids
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
756:
754:
745:
744:
728:
727:
708:
692:
665:
647:
646:
645:
644:
604:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
505:
504:
492:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
440:
439:
438:
437:
413:
401:63.228.155.130
387:
386:
385:
384:
372:
371:
370:
369:
336:
327:
312:
295:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
242:
241:
228:
227:
226:
225:
196:
195:
194:
193:
177:
176:
138:
137:
84:
82:
81:
76:
71:
65:
62:
60:
55:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
755:
743:
741:
736:
730:
729:
726:
722:
718:
717:
712:
709:
707:
704:
700:
696:
693:
691:
686:
682:
678:
673:
669:
666:
664:
661:
657:
652:
649:
648:
643:
640:
636:
631:
630:
629:
626:
622:
617:
616:
615:
614:
611:
602:
592:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
564:
560:
555:
550:
549:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
524:
520:
516:
512:
509:
508:
507:
506:
503:
500:
496:
493:
491:
488:
484:
481:
480:
471:
468:
464:
463:
462:
459:
454:
453:
452:
449:
444:
443:
442:
441:
436:
433:
430:
426:
425:
424:
421:
417:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
392:
391:DO NOT DELETE
389:
388:
383:
380:
376:
375:
374:
373:
368:
365:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
349:
345:
340:
337:
335:
330:
326:
322:
321:
316:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
294:
291:
287:
284:
283:
274:
271:
267:
266:
265:
262:
258:
257:
256:
253:
249:
246:
245:
244:
243:
240:
237:
233:
230:
229:
224:
221:
216:
213:
212:
211:
208:
204:
201:
198:
197:
192:
189:
184:
181:
180:
179:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
161:
160:
159:
158:
155:
151:
147:
143:
135:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
108:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:
80:
77:
75:
72:
70:
67:
59:
56:
54:
53:
50:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
734:
731:
714:
710:
703:Bridgeplayer
699:psychobabble
694:
667:
650:
606:
553:
510:
494:
482:
415:
390:
338:
319:
314:
297:
290:Sxeptomaniac
285:
270:Bigdaddy1981
252:Bigdaddy1981
247:
236:Bigdaddy1981
231:
214:
199:
162:
139:
45:
43:
31:
28:
695:Delete view
639:perfectblue
610:perfectblue
487:Yamaguchi先生
467:perfectblue
448:perfectblue
420:perfectblue
379:perfectblue
300:per nom. --
261:perfectblue
188:perfectblue
621:UFO Digest
668:Week keep
584:liking it
603:Re Write
588:Pharmboy
544:Pharmboy
499:LiPollis
458:Pharmboy
409:contribs
397:unsigned
220:Pharmboy
207:Pharmboy
183:WP:BALLS
134:View log
523:witches
519:goblins
339:Comment
320:Nenyedi
107:protect
102:history
46:Delete.
711:Delete
554:lying.
515:Ghosts
483:Delete
315:Delete
298:Delete
286:Delete
232:Delete
200:Delete
171:Shalom
163:Delete
111:delete
49:Walton
635:WP:RS
580:WP:RS
536:wp:rs
325:Deeds
150:WP:OR
128:views
120:watch
116:links
16:<
721:talk
660:Talk
656:Vary
651:Keep
625:Alfa
576:WP:V
572:WP:N
563:Talk
559:Vary
532:wp:v
528:wp:n
521:and
495:Keep
432:Alfa
429:WP:V
416:Keep
405:talk
364:Alfa
361:WP:V
359:and
357:WP:N
348:Talk
344:Vary
306:talk
302:PEAR
154:Alfa
146:WP:V
144:and
142:WP:N
124:logs
98:talk
94:edit
716:DGG
685:WRE
672:J.S
132:– (
723:)
658:|
561:|
411:).
407:•
346:|
308:)
169:.
126:|
122:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
719:(
687:)
683:/
681:C
679:/
677:T
675:(
403:(
329:@
304:(
136:)
130:)
92:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.