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. BigDom 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watseka wonder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Also see The wateska wonder

Article about an alleged spiritual possession, largely sourced to a Wiki about that subject, with no other verifiable third-party sources. Strikerforce (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Since I nominated this page, the primary contributor has put quite a bit of work into the article and has brought it, in my opinion, to the point that it no longer warrants deletion. As such, I have elected to offer a !vote to keep below, but will leave my original nom statement for others to evaluate as they see fit. Strikerforce (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete Redirect to Spirit possession Current sources for this article at this time are personal web-pages and a fringe wiki that should be considered unreliable. Phearson (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Commenti can not understand what is your meaning from third party sources i adapted this article from the sources which are based on the memories of the eyewitnessesNavid1366 (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navid1366 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But are they reliable sources? To the best of my judgement, they are not. Strikerforce (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...That need to be published in trustworthy WP:RS for WP:V. Like a newspaper or magazine article. Personal websites are not, and let me give an example; I could throw up a personal website myself and say I saw bigfoot or similar disputed hoax. See what I'm getting at? Phearson (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am talking about memories of witnesses like Dr. E. W. Stevens or Richard Hodgson (1855-1905)the first full-time, paid psychical researcher of the American Society for Psychical Research http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Lurancy_Vennum2.htm http://weird-people.com/spiritual_possession/ Navid1366 (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any of his published works that match up to the article? Phearson (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of website sources instead of book sources is not a good approach. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The topic clearly is notable and has been around since at least 1860.[1] See Google Books general search and Google Books 19th Century search. The use of hokey sources for the artice means Wikipedia would be better off without it as now written. The wateska wonder was previously deleted. Delete and redirect to Spirit possession. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an article there, but it needs massive improvement. As Uzma Gamal rightly points out, "the topic clearly is notable and has been around since at least 1860." The article as it stands at the time I'm writing, as Uzma Gamal again rightly points out, uses only "hokey sources". This is not a reason to delete - see WP:BEFORE. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure the link to policy was necessarily directed at me, as the nominator, but in the event that it might have been, I would just like to point out that the article has undergone substantial improvement since I nominated it. I'm still not convinced that it should stand on its own, but it has improved. I tip my hat to the primary contributor, in that regard. Strikerforce (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the article creator's replys, including on my talk page, I think the use of non reliable website sources instead of widely available, easily accessible book sources for the article is intentional and disruption, no matter its form, is a basis to not keep an article. If someone replaces those website references with book, newspaper, magazine articles - things on printed paper, that would remove this disruption issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.I have mentioned in that articlw which this case is the first well documented spirit possession in America and all details of incident are based on the memories of eyewitnesses as i have mentioned so there is doubt about the reliability of them,but about the nobility you should consider this case as one of the rare super natural cases which was documented and recorded by verifiable eyewitnesses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.9.55 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — 91.99.9.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Many Google books sources available. Google News too. Deletion is way unnecessary here, I think. This should have been tagged for maintenance, or even stubbified, but there's no good reason to delete a notable topic that Wikipedia has not yet covered. -- œ^™ 03:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Topic meets WP:N as book results show the subject has been written of and studied for decades. The article will benefit from cleanup, expansion, and better use of sources. We do not delete what can be made to serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As noted above, the primary contributor has done enough work on the article since I originally made my nomination that I believe the article has reached a point of being worthy of hanging around. Strikerforce (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All the Google News cites that are not directly about the incident are about a play written about the incident. Very notable bogus superstition, just as Amityville Horror was a notable bogus fabrication playing on superstition. Anarchangel (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (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.