Welcome to WikiProject Paranormal, a WikiProject that aims to provide a framework for the improvement and organization of articles related to the paranormal, anomalous phenomena and other similar areas. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask us on our discussion page.
To provide a concise and accurate record of notable beliefs, organizations, experiments, individuals and events which are associated with the paranormal, including their history, background and their current status.
To provide a framework (including infoboxes, categories, and examples of Best Practice) from within which scholarly entries about the paranormal, and related topics, may be produced.
To provide a scholarly set of terminology to describe the paranormal which is technically, culturally, and contextually accurate.
To seek out and apply verifiable mainstream sources to pages within the projects scope with the aim of A) addressing any issues of verifiability and reliability that have been highlighted in existing entries, and B) ensuring that new entries are of sufficient quality that their verifiability and reliability do not become an issue.
To ensure that each entry approaches its topic from a balanced and neutral perspective.
To ensure that the notability of each topic can be gleaned from its entry, without the need for additional explanation.
To ensure that a clear dividing line is established between reporting the belief in/background of the topic in a scholarly manner, and advocating/denouncing the topic itself.
To expand project stubs to full entries and to progress full entries to the next level.
Patrol frequently vandalized pages within the project's scope.
The following articles fall within the scope of the project and have been noted for their outstanding quality. Project members are encouraged use them as examples of good practice and to note their different writing and organizational styles.
This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk·contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject Paranormal}}) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See WP:RECOG for configuration options.
One good source for mothman, others are WBOY-TV and a local station's site w/ news. Only list of cryptids for a state, don't see categories or lists by country. Removed some sources before nominating. fiveby(zero) 22:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly, but this could be useful as I was not even aware the Snallygaster was a real myth, so it has been informative, I suppose a push Merge with list of cryptids.But I can see why a more local list could have use. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no particular need for there to be other articles or lists by state in order for this one to exist; others could just as easily be created if they're supported by reliable sources. The question is whether reliable sources for the creatures on this list exist, not whether they're currently cited. There will obviously be lots of sources for Mothman and the Flatwoods Monster, not as sure about the others. But I'm pretty sure a search will turn up news articles about some of them, and I've seen books on West Virginia folklore that presumably mention more than these two—I seem to recall one with the Flatwoods Monster on the cover—and it's not a requirement that sources be available over the internet. A trip to the library may be in order, but remember, there's no deadline to improve articles, and that's what this is: an article in need of improved sourcing, not one that's impossible to source. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Folklore should go into West Virginia folklore and better lists would might be folklore creatures by country or maybe even state. That is a big problem with some of these articles, they turn 'folklore' into 'cryptids' and use and attract a lot of dubious sources to do it. Anyway made some more edits to the list article. fiveby(zero) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of your numerous edits—besides nominating the article for deletion—have been deletion of material from the article: around 2,000 bytes so far. It looks like you're attempting deletion piece-by-piece so that you can make the argument that there's not enough left to keep! That's not how this should work. Did you look for sources, or just delete the ones that didn't meet your personal inclusion criteria, and then all of the items that were no longer sufficiently supported by the remaining sources? I note that in one case, you deleted an item because the cited source didn't call it a "cryptid". It may be that this article is mis-titled, and it would be better called something like "monsters of West Virginia" or "monsters and creatures of folklore from West Virginia". That's not an argument for deletion—but it seems to be providing the basis for shrinking the list in support of deleting it! Chopping up a short article that you yourself nominated for deletion—within a day of its creation, and without any attempt to identify issues that might be addressed by means short of deletion, or sources that could be added—seems like a poor way of dealing with a new article. P Aculeius (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought i was attempting deletion by AfD no? Everyone can see my edits in the history and disagree or not—and edit the article. I kinda remember letting everyone know i had made edits, lets see: Removed some sources before nominating and just above Anyway made some more edits to the list article. I did not really look for sources, thought it hardly worth the effort. Did note an ISBN in an edit summary if anyone wants to try and find it. There is one source there which collects a West Virginia list of cryptids. I nominated, as i thought i had said in the above, because it was a one-of-a-kind when there are no country lists even. There's some disagreement as to whether there should be a main list at all.
It's not my "personal inclusion criteria" but my best interpretation of otherpeoples. If you disagree, go revert. I've dug through plenty of sources looking at cryptids and argued to keep occasionally. Just don't like calling a deer a horse. fiveby(zero) 17:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To join, sign your name at the /Participants page and add the main page to your watchlist. Members can add the following userboxes to identify themselves as members of the project. A list of members with these userboxes is available at Category:WikiProject Paranormal participants.
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This user is a part of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
{{blackproject}} - Notice placed on talk pages of articles that discuss black projects — "highly classified military/defense projects, unacknowledged publicly by the government, military personnel, or defense contractors"
Because of the nature of such projects, the most authoritative sources (any involved governments and defense contractors) may not even acknowledge its existence. The most reliable sources may be highly speculative.
FA
GA
Area 51
Líneas de Nazca, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 49
.svg){kind=small}
.png)
Definitions from Wiktionary
Media from Commons
News from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Resources from Wikiversity
