483:- well written article describing possible "mainstream" theories on their existance. How many more do you want? This subject is covered on every paranormal site that I have come across. Remember, the policy states "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.". I hope this helps.
222:. Past AFDs argue that there is one article at about.com, but most about.com articles do not meet reliability; anyone can sign up to write for about.com, some of their writers are qualified experts, while others are "housewives" writing about pet topics (this was reviewed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard long ago). Two AFDs have not resulted in any reliable sources being added to this article in four years.
210:
article was recreated with no reliable sources after the 2nd AFD; it should have been speedied as recreation of deleted material; instead it was featured on DYK. Two non-reliable sources were added to this article at DYK by the DYK reviewer who passed the hook, and the article was run on the mainpage in spite of me notifying DYK of the problem.
209:
In spite of two previous AFDs (the article was deleted after the 2nd AFD), this article still has only one reliable source, has not been rewritten to include new reliable sources, and I can find nothing on google or google scholar except Wiki mirrors, blogs and unreliable sources. No idea why the
317:
While I strongly support deletion, the article has to be a duplicate of the previously deleted material to qualify for G4 (which I'm not sure if it is, an admin will have to verify). It may be unlikely though, since this article was created in 2010 and the previous deleted article was created in
590:
basis in popular culture, has not achieved widespread recognition, fame, or notoriety, and is about as focused as an article on "Angel
Statues" that come to life and attack the kids who are home alone. This explains the lack of reliable sources - there aren't going to be many for something this
380:
these kids feature in many paranormal films, so ther notability should not be in question. They are characters, and may also exist in the real world. Although I have no sources at this time, they do, as I said above, appear in movies, so at least that should be notable, as minor characters. But
585:
I've read my share of paranormal stories and urban legends, and I feel this article topic isn't nearly substantial enough to exist on this wiki (maybe on a ghost/paranormal wiki). Entire article is mere speculation on a specific phenomenon that has no
248:
244:
615:. The "reliable sources" found above are not reliable. The content guideline being used to support retention of the article requires at least one reliable source, which none of the above are. Sorry, I can't agree to keep this article.
256:
178:
699:
79:
74:
959:
to summarize what I have said previously, non-notable nonsense. I'm fairly tolerant about articles on the paranormal, but this is at the low end of significance, even as imaginative fiction.
768:: These articles do describe the phenomenon, as opposed to merely telling a story, but they're from obscure, fringe sites that focus on the paranormal and are unlikely to be reliable. Also,
504:(a book that is "published" does not automatically make it a reliable source). If this were truly notable, it would have been covered by reliable sources. For those reasons, it fails
723:: This is a blog, which is commenting on the About.com article. It's not a separate source, and the About.com article, as has been described above, is of dubious reliability.
134:
923:. Supernatural phenomena tends to get a lot of press in the news media, while this event has not gotten any mainstream press, making claims of notability highly dubious.--
172:
735:: This is a short story, not an account of the phenomenon, and while the owner of the blog has written a book, it doesn't indicate that this story is included in it.
69:
695:
911:), that merely summarises the ghost story posted on Usenet. With a one page-long tertiary source and a single secondary source, the article does
717:: No evidence of editorial standards. Seems to just be a collection of scary stories found online. This specific article is a repost of an email.
691:
560:
as a borderline RS for this subject, one page out of three hundred that mentions this legend still doesn't make it notable enough to pass
107:
102:
707:. I've noticed sources being listed above, but if you visit the sites, it becomes evident that many of are not considered reliable per
395:
a guy tells an internet ghost story and... that's about it. No in depth coverage of this meme in any high quality sources... anywhere.
259:, which is surprising, considering the media are usually gung-ho on stories about paranormal claims. One source is not enough to meet
215:
111:
299:
This is recreation of previously deleted material deleted at an AfD discussion. I am thus going to nom it for speedy criterion g4.—
1066:
1049:
1025:
1000:
982:
970:
939:
894:
876:
847:
816:
793:
679:
658:
637:
599:
573:
553:
I'm still not seeing a
Reliable Source in the article or in any of the websites linked here. Even if RS was stretched to include "
548:
534:
517:
492:
441:
418:
404:
387:
370:
334:
312:
291:
279:
234:
52:
832:
628:
449:- I am a little confused how this got to this point, although the article needs serious work. first, it should be covered under
358:
94:
17:
193:
160:
885:"The Brad Steiger citation is perfectly fine, so is the ODD-ysey one." - you know "multiple" means "more than one", right?
800:
About.com has some professional writes, others that just "sign up" to write, no editorial oversight. Others can judge the
726:
466:
729:: This is another collection of online ghost stories. There's no evidence of editorial standards. Not a reliable source.
905:
the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources
645:: These "black eyed kids" sound quite freaky. I though this article was going to be about some kid version of the
978:. Sources are not reliable, and subject is not encyclopedic. Documenting usenet discussions is not our function.
927:
864:
781:
765:
720:
475:
463:
428:- no evidence of notability as shown in coverage by reliable sources. Possible candidate for speedy deletion under
322:
267:
1081:
1062:
450:
154:
36:
856:
The Brad
Steiger citation is perfectly fine, so is the ODD-ysey one. I don't think that's enough though to meet
758:: Nom has discussed the merits of this source. About.com does have some editorial standards, but is this enough?
345:
If you guys want to check out the previous version of the article an compare it to the one I made you can do so
1080:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
772:
reccomends that sources, if they're news sites, come from mainstream or notable news sites. These two are not.
732:
649:. As for the AfD discussion, it looks like some sources are being discovered which may merit it being kept.--
469:
400:
385:
150:
1021:
812:
558:
230:
361:
covers this topic in detail. I found it by noticing it is referenced in the
Sacramento Press article...
924:
861:
778:
569:
513:
488:
319:
306:
264:
200:
139:
1058:
1045:
623:
539:
You do realize that at this point the nom statement no longer applies as other RSes have been found?
98:
741:: Another short story off a blog, and it's not a journalistic or academic account of the phenonenon.
890:
675:
186:
594:
437:
396:
382:
689:
For what it's worth, this article can't be G4d, as it's not a duplicate of the original article.
831:
These paramormal subjects are always tough to judge the sourcing on. But a source cited above
1017:
805:
500:
I don't see one single source in the article, or in the links provided just above, that meets
223:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
755:
481:
166:
979:
565:
509:
484:
301:
1041:
801:
646:
618:
544:
414:
366:
90:
58:
49:
761:
457:
1035:
886:
738:
671:
530:
472:
591:
obscure. And essentially any of the sources linked are going to be original research.
251:, but despite the misleading name, a quick search on the publisher indicates that the
1013:
993:
966:
840:
651:
608:
561:
505:
433:
1038:
920:
908:
835:
769:
708:
501:
429:
409:
Published books aren't high-quality sources? May I ask what you are looking for?
128:
432:, but as it's been taken to AFD we may as well let it be discussed here instead.
916:
857:
667:
612:
260:
219:
453:. Now, given the notability criteria there, the following sources can be added
247:(which has already been mentioned in the article). There's another source from
540:
460:
410:
362:
288:
714:
454:
526:
211:
961:
907:". You should read the sources. The ODD-ysey one is a tertiary source (
903:
Knowledge requires multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources, of which "
747:: User submitted ghost stories, no evidence of editorial standards.
252:
744:
478:
1074:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
687:. As far as I can see, this passes the notability guidelines.
359:
Real
Vampires, Night Stalkers and Creatures from the Darkside
212:"Sacramento Press" is a volunteer community contributor site
124:
120:
116:
185:
80:
Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (3rd nomination)
75:
Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (2nd nomination)
1057:- non notable ghost story posted on usenet. Thanks,
991:
Except when those black eyed kids come after you.--
802:journalist credentials of the about.com volunteer
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1084:). No further edits should be made to this page.
214:with a misleading name, and there is nothing on
909:Knowledge requires reliabile secondary sources
199:
8:
471:- excerpt from a book covering the subject,
243:. I can find only one reliable source, from
711:. These articles are clearly unreliable:
253:content was lifted directly off Knowledge
838:is who pretty well known in the field.--
752:While these are of dubious reliability:
666:; the additional sources show it passes
67:
1012:- the sourcing is inadequate to meet
70:Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids
7:
860:, which requires multiple sources.--
65:
245:Weird U.S. the Odd-yssey Continues
24:
555:Weird U.S. The ODDyssey Continues
255:. There are no relevant/reliable
692:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1067:23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
1050:18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
1026:17:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
1001:15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
983:15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
971:03:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
940:08:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
895:04:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
877:04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
848:02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
817:22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
794:22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
700:21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
680:14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
659:12:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
638:04:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
600:04:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
574:21:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
549:21:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
535:18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
518:17:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
493:16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
456:- an investigative website,
442:12:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
419:12:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
405:12:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
388:11:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
371:11:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
335:10:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
313:10:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
292:09:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
280:09:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
235:07:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
53:00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
218:to establish that it meets
1101:
451:Knowledge:Fringe theories
1077:Please do not modify it.
777:So I retain my delete.--
381:that's just my opinion.
32:Please do not modify it.
766:ProfilingtheUnexplained
727:Shop of Little Horrors
462:- a fringe news site,
64:AfDs for this article:
915:meet the criteria of
607:as the article fails
468:- brief tidbit here,
804:for this article.
44:The result was
999:
846:
657:
357:Pages 245-249 of
1092:
1079:
998:
937:
932:
874:
869:
845:
809:
791:
786:
733:From the Shadows
656:
636:
633:
626:
621:
598:
347:
346:
332:
327:
309:
304:
277:
272:
227:
204:
203:
189:
142:
132:
114:
34:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1082:deletion review
1075:
1059:Starblueheather
933:
928:
870:
865:
807:
787:
782:
647:Black Eyed Peas
632:
629:
624:
619:
616:
592:
328:
323:
307:
302:
273:
268:
225:
146:
138:
105:
91:Black Eyed Kids
89:
86:
84:
62:
59:Black Eyed Kids
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1098:
1096:
1087:
1086:
1070:
1069:
1052:
1029:
1028:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
986:
985:
973:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
898:
897:
880:
879:
851:
850:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
775:
774:
773:
759:
750:
749:
748:
742:
736:
730:
724:
718:
702:
682:
661:
640:
630:
602:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
520:
495:
444:
423:
422:
421:
390:
374:
373:
351:
350:
349:
348:
340:
339:
338:
337:
294:
282:
263:guidelines. --
207:
206:
143:
140:Afd statistics
85:
83:
82:
77:
72:
66:
63:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1097:
1085:
1083:
1078:
1072:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1002:
996:
995:
990:
989:
988:
987:
984:
981:
977:
974:
972:
968:
964:
963:
958:
955:
954:
941:
938:
936:
931:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
900:
899:
896:
892:
888:
884:
883:
882:
881:
878:
875:
873:
868:
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
852:
849:
843:
842:
837:
833:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
818:
814:
810:
803:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
792:
790:
785:
780:
776:
771:
767:
763:
760:
757:
754:
753:
751:
746:
743:
740:
737:
734:
731:
728:
725:
722:
719:
716:
713:
712:
710:
706:
703:
701:
697:
693:
690:
686:
683:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
662:
660:
654:
653:
648:
644:
641:
639:
635:
634:
627:
622:
614:
610:
606:
603:
601:
596:
589:
584:
581:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
556:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
496:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
467:
465:- more news,
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
448:
445:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
397:Bali ultimate
394:
391:
389:
386:
384:
383:CybergothiChé
379:
376:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
344:
343:
342:
341:
336:
333:
331:
326:
321:
316:
315:
314:
311:
310:
305:
298:
297:Speedy delete
295:
293:
290:
286:
283:
281:
278:
276:
271:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
249:Teen Websters
246:
242:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
221:
217:
213:
202:
198:
195:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:Find sources:
144:
141:
136:
130:
126:
122:
118:
113:
109:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
87:
81:
78:
76:
73:
71:
68:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1076:
1073:
1054:
1032:
1018:Bridgeplayer
1009:
992:
975:
960:
956:
934:
929:
912:
904:
871:
866:
839:
836:Brad Steiger
788:
783:
721:Hecklerspray
704:
688:
684:
663:
650:
642:
617:
604:
587:
582:
554:
522:
497:
446:
425:
392:
377:
354:
329:
324:
300:
296:
284:
274:
269:
257:news sources
240:
208:
196:
190:
182:
175:
169:
163:
157:
147:
45:
43:
31:
28:
980:Chick Bowen
588:significant
566:First Light
525:per nom. --
510:First Light
485:Turlo Lomon
447:Strong Keep
287:per Laozi.
173:free images
1042:The Eskimo
762:UFO Digest
739:UFO Mystic
595:Pufferfish
50:Courcelles
887:Ironholds
672:Ironholds
216:this site
994:Milowent
841:Milowent
715:ParaMyst
652:Milowent
434:Robofish
135:View log
1036:wp:note
808:Georgia
705:Comment
643:Comment
583:Delete.
318:2007.--
226:Georgia
179:WP refs
167:scholar
108:protect
103:history
1055:Delete
1033:Delete
1014:WP:GNG
1010:Delete
976:Delete
957:Delete
834:is by
620:Imzadi
609:WP:GNG
605:Delete
562:WP:GNG
523:Delete
506:WP:GNG
498:Delete
426:Delete
393:Delete
285:Delete
241:Delete
151:Google
112:delete
46:delete
1039:wp:rs
967:talk
935:speak
930:Laozi
921:WP:RS
872:speak
867:Laozi
806:Sandy
789:speak
784:Laozi
770:WP:RS
756:About
709:WP:RS
541:Hobit
502:WP:RS
430:WP:G4
411:Hobit
363:Hobit
330:speak
325:Laozi
308:dαlus
289:Panyd
275:speak
270:Laozi
224:Sandy
194:JSTOR
155:books
137:) •
129:views
121:watch
117:links
16:<
1063:talk
1046:talk
1022:talk
917:WP:N
891:talk
858:WP:N
813:Talk
764:and
696:talk
685:Keep
676:talk
668:WP:N
664:Keep
625:1979
613:WP:V
611:and
570:talk
545:talk
531:talk
527:John
514:talk
489:talk
438:talk
415:talk
401:talk
378:Keep
367:talk
355:Keep
261:WP:N
231:Talk
220:WP:V
187:FENS
161:news
125:logs
99:talk
95:edit
962:DGG
925:hkr
919:or
913:not
862:hkr
779:hkr
745:BEK
320:hkr
265:hkr
201:TWL
133:– (
1065:)
1048:)
1024:)
1016:.
997:•
969:)
893:)
844:•
815:)
698:)
678:)
670:.
655:•
572:)
564:.
547:)
533:)
516:)
508:.
491:)
480:,
477:,
474:,
459:,
440:)
417:)
403:)
369:)
303:Dæ
233:)
181:)
127:|
123:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
48:.
1061:(
1044:(
1020:(
965:(
889:(
811:(
694:(
674:(
631:→
597:⑨
593:☢
568:(
557:"
543:(
529:(
512:(
487:(
436:(
413:(
399:(
365:(
229:(
205:)
197:·
191:·
183:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
153:(
145:(
131:)
93:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.