Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs)

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 Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs)

Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability concerns (from speedy/prod tags) + factuality + possible hoax Kwsn (Ni!) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparent multitude of external links seems to boil down to just one story. Notability as an "urban myth" not established. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable whether as myth or fact.Xymmax (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable within the field of urban myths. Universal notability is irrelevant as most pop culture artifacts would fail it (EG: All US football stars and teams would fail notability if global notability were had to be proven) - perfectblue (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Non notable and all info could be put on other pages or is already covered by other pages.YVNP (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This isn't a hoax - at least, this is an actual urban legend. However, the article has been deleted before. Zagalejo^^^ 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Failed for three times. Unreliable (few) sources. Zerokitsune (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete it and hunt down the user who submitted it. ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid deletion rationale, please try to take this seriously. - perfectblue (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Strange article. I have no objections to its deletion, the sources aren't great.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep BEKs is modern day folklore which granted not too widely known about at the momment but it IS known and as new people find out about it the more they'll wanna do some research on it therefore deserves a wiki reference just as well as vampires, ghosts, aliens, and other myths and urban legends. Many incident reports have been made and a wiki-reference to where more information and research on these creatures or myths should be accepted. Hoax or not, BEKs have become Folklore if not modern day urban legends. This article dosnt state that any of it is FACT because just like vampires, goblins, ghost, ghouls, and what not its never considered fact.. hence what makes it PARAnormal! Although there have already been many reported incidents about this and there have been alot of people interested in the subject as shown in many forums and websites and should be allowed a spot on wiki for these reports and other people researching to have a place of reference to find all the information they may need - hence what wikipedia is all about. Cybermewtwo (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: my original article has been changed completly pretty much. <_< 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermewtwo (talk • contribs)

• Keep, but needs improvement. BEK are a verifiable urban myth that has been doing the rounds on the internet since 1998 and is still going. Its age alone allows it to pass notability and that's not even counting the huge proflegation of reports and sighting, it's only Wikipedia's own regs against using message board posts that prevent literally thousands of reports and discussions being listed here as sources confirming their notability. Frankly, this page is a stub with half a dozen firm citations of this as a notable and existing myth, that's more than half of the full articles on Wikipedia have. Let's be serious, this is a urban myth so it's not going to get coverage in peer reviewed journals, it's nearly 10 years old and is still going so it's got staying power and has a clear place in the public consciousness, and it's covering the myth as a myth and not POV pushing to say that it's about a real creature or creatures so it passes on all accounts. - perfectblue (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. BEKs are internet hoax (since 1998 and internet only? It's 100% hoax). Not forget: this article was delete two times. Lumina Montecarlo (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're argument would only make sense if the entry claimed that they were real, but it clearly states that they are a odern urban myth, and where the first account of the myth came from, and by your own admission the myth has survived nearly 10 years which clearly makes it notable on duration alone. perfectblue (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable and nonsensical. Even those arguing keep admin " granted not too widely known about at the moment" -- that's an admission of non notability if there ever was one, and WP does not exist for the purpose of making non-notable things notable. DGG (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't "admit" that it's non-notable, I say that it is notable based on its age and its spread. How many other urban myths not only survive for 9 year, but also spread widely outside of their original geographic location? That's like saying ET is non-notable because it wasn't a hit in Iceland. - perfectblue (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This article has same problems of former deleted article. Age is not synonymous of quality or notability. Message boards are not reliable sources, anyway. Give us good references. Zerokitsune (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you mean by quality, but if you read the changes that I've made to the page it makes it abundantly clear that it is dealing with the myth of BEK, not BEK as a reality of science/nature so the fact that there is no tangible evidence of BEK as a real life creature is pretty much irrelevant as this entry isn't about them as a creature, only as an element of a myth. I also have to point out that in the case of an urban myth, age actually is an indicator of notability. A myth isn't like a physical object. It must be perpetuated by popular culture in order to continue to exist and it is this perpetuation in culture that makes it notable. Let me put it this way, the myth began in 1998 and attracted sufficient notability/notoriety that versions of the myth continue to form to this day and it continues to be discussed and debated, too. If the myth formed in 1998 and existed only as a footnote in web-lore today then it wouldn't be notable, but that is not the case as people are still reporting BEK (real or fake) and are still actively discussing the original sighting. This is a clear indicator of its notability.

As for reliability, I'm afraid that you have fallen into a common trap, you've read through WP:RS and have remembered the end but have forgotten the beginning. WP:RS clearly states that a source must be appropriate for the claim being made. In this case, the claim being made is that an urban myth exists, and that the contents are ...... While a message board would not be a sufficient source to say that BEK exist and that X saw one, they are reliable enough to demonstrate that BEK exist as an element of pop-culture. I can't stress this enough, the citations are proof of existence in pop-culture, not proof of facts in history or science. They serve only to show that the myth is verifiable as a real myth, not that the events in the myth really happened.

For example, If I were to write an entry about a campfire-tale horror story I could legitimately cite any website, book or message board that carried a representative version of that story. It wouldn't matter who the author was, who what the story was, or how academically credible the story was, all that would matter was I could demonstrate that the myth is recounted in popular culture and what it's contents were as per WP:V and PW:NOR. 99% of WP:RS is not applicable as the page is dealing with fiction, not fact. In fact, the primary application of WP:RS would be to ensure that the source is representative of the myth, and is not a fringe or original version.

It's not really relevant in any case as this page isn't actually reallying on message boards as sources they're a tertiary source at best. The entry's primary sources are actually pre-existing text "discussing a topic that first appeared on a message board", which fully complies with WP:RS and WP:V. Message board sources serve only to show that the myth "exists on message boards" which is perfectly allowable as WP:RS states that the source must be appropriate for the claim and since the claim is that "the myth appears on message boards" then message boards are perfectly OK as tertiary sources (WP:V that the topic appears on message boards, while media discussing message board entries are actually demanded by WP:V and WP:RS as they are third party sources. Take the citation for Barry Napier. He's a third party WP:V source discussing BEK as a myth from a skeptical perspective. Frankly, that's enough to WP:RS this page on its own.

perfectblue (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There are sources but none seem to be reliable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously people, this is an entry about an urban myth not about some new found species. WP:RS is a sliding scale, the more extraordinary the claim the more reliable the source and vice versa, and there's certainly nothing extraordinary about an entry stating that BEK are an urban myth (Take a look above, nobody on this page is disputing this fact, not one person). Maybe if the page was claiming that BEK were living breathing creature.... but no such claim is being made. The sources are entirely appropriate for the topic.

What about Napier? He ticks all of the boxes. He's a reliable third part reporting on the story as an urban myth from a skeptical perspective. He can stand 70-80% of the entry up by himself.

If this entry is deleted on reliability grounds it sets a bad precedent: that urban myths need to be sourced as if they were talking about real topics, which in itself is POV pushing as it could imply that the contents of an urban myth are real. Let's get a grip, only a fraction of notable myths will ever get peer review attention or be detailed by big name authors, the sources are perfectly OK for the entry.

Let's look at the facts.

• 9 years old and still going
• Approaches the topic as "a real myth" not "a myth about real things"
• Source to a reliable skeptical third party

There are no serious grounds for deletion here. It passes all of the criteria set for it in policy and in guidelines. - perfectblue (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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.