Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal

General information
Main project page talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Newsletter talk
Peer review talk

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.

Anyone is welcome to join by listing their username on the /Participants page and contributing to the project. Make sure to put our discussion page to your watchlist so you're notified of new discussions. Watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Paranormal is also strongly recommended.


  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. To provide a scholarly set of terminology to describe the paranormal which is technically, culturally, and contextually accurate.
  4. 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.
  5. To ensure that each entry approaches its topic from a balanced and neutral perspective.
  6. To ensure that the notability of each topic can be gleaned from its entry, without the need for additional explanation.
  7. 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.
  8. To expand project stubs to full entries and to progress full entries to the next level.
  9. Patrol frequently vandalized pages within the project's scope.


Subjects covered by this project include (but are not necessarily limited to):

The beginnings of a list of topics which are covered in reference books directly related to this topic can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Encyclopedic articles.


High-level article categories
Stub categories

Recognized contentEdit

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.

Full list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Recognized content

Featured articlesEdit

Featured listsEdit

Good articlesEdit

Featured article candidatesEdit

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team release version selectionsEdit


Article alertsEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Article alerts:

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Featured article candidates

Articles to be merged

Deletion sortingEdit

Click "[show]" to expand

Paranormal deletionEdit

Pamela Rai MengesEdit

Pamela Rai Menges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

The consensus from all who gave input in the first nomination process was to have the articlespace deleted, as it does not meet the criteria for WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (Redacted)

In this second nomination, the subject still lacks notability and WP:SIGCOV. Multi7001 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Page Sources Analysis by Multi7001
Source Sites Links Date of Publication Written by Staff Writer Reliability as per WP:RS Significant Coverage as per WP:SIGCOV Comments by Multi7001
AAAS LINK Apr 26, 2019 No No (AAAS is open to public for memberships. The link is not a news, it is a blog post; any member can subscribe and volunteer) No Does not meet WP:People, WP:BIO or WP:GNG.
The Space Show LINK Mar 27, 2015 Yes (Article was filed in their main editorial space) No (Source is weak and has nearly no notability) Yes The source cannot be used 'standalone' to establish it meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG.
Learning with Lowell LINK Aug 17, 2021 No No (Source is not reliable and possibly spam).
NIAC LINK 2005 No No No PR booklet (in PDF) of an annual convention with nearly no mention of the subject. Poses COI with subject and does not demonstrate significance.
University of Cincinnati LINK Mar 2, 2021 No No No Brief Uni profiles where the subject studied is unreliable and often self-publish. No indication as independent, reliable source with significant coverage.
Spaceplanes: From Airport to Spaceport ISBN: 9780387765105 2009 -- No -- Only mentions a few sentences of the subject. The company mentioned did not meet WP:GNG and the articlespace was deleted. Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG. (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.)
Women In International Security 2021 -- No No The organization is not notable or reliable; a previous articlespace was attempted for WIS but rejected. This source does not establish notability.
Energy Vortex 2008 -- No No This is a self-publish press release and does not establish notability.
Star Sailor Energy 2021 -- No No This is a self-publish press release and does not establish notability.
Cincinnati Public Radio 2015 Yes Yes Yes Both articles from 2015 and 2019 are reliable sources and provide good discussion of the subject. However, this source alone cannot be used to establish notability for its own articlespace.
  • CommentNeutral:*Null and void: per the earliet nom. this has been irregularly raised. No objection to a correctly raised third nomination. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC) I am choosing to recuse from this highly disrupted AfD where the nom. has left allegations about be at the top of the nom. I have seen my !vote collapsed and uncollapsed by good faith people but ultimately if not null and voided will inevitably need DRV where peoples may be WP:TROUTEed. To be clear I have no objection to an immediate 3rd nom. where the immutability of the discussion is respected; and welcome the table suggested by the nom. of a variation thereof to be presented. This AfD perhaps is useful as a training example for the nom. but little other purpose. Please also note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AfD interference and allegations. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've sort of come out of recuse to call for this to be speedy closed .... see below. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. What's going on here? Typically nominators provide a rationale and sign their nomination. Who is the nominator? pburka (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Striking, as the nomination has been cleaned up by other editors. pburka (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Speedy Close or Procedural Close: With recommendation to closer to make it clear there is no objection to immediate renomination. (The hope on such a renomination is the nominator (and others) will not keep changing the nomination after it is posted but follow proper discussion ettiquette). To quote perhaps loosely from the ANI discussion: "The ongoing AfD will not lead to anything worthy, and it has caused and will keep causing people to waste their time. So it's disruptive" & "he first thing to do is to call for speedy close or procedural close from within the AFD". Three points: I have fingers all over this, I may have bias in making this vote; and I tried to do this over 12 hours ago but failed to hit PUBLISH rather than REVIEW and lost the edit. I do expect the the non personal attack source analysis etc. to be brought to any re-nominated AfD; the key reason for call to close to prevent peoples waste of time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Do not close the AfD. This article has been nominated twice in a short period of time. It's been at AfD almost continuously for the last three weeks. The first AfD closed as "null outcome", which isn't a clear result but certainly wasn't an indication that the article deserved either keeping or deletion. Let's have this discussion here to the end, whether that be "keep", "delete", or "no consensus". I am not expressing a recommendation of my own because I haven't yet started to care either way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Metropolitan90 as long as that nominating statement is allowed to remain, any delete result is almost guaranteed to be overturned at DRV for the chilling effect it has on good-faith participation. The only result that will ever stick is keep, rendering this AFD completely pointless. Stlwart111 02:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The correct thing to do here was for somebody to redact the obvious personal attack. The AfD otherwise seems to have a valid rationale (whether it is correct or not), so there is not a valid reason to speedy close this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
An out-of-process nomination, two hours after another was closed, with a bunch of (the same) technical mistakes, peppered with personal attacks, lunched to make a point... there's five reasons to close this without thinking too hard. Admins must have pins and needles from all of the sitting-on-hands that has been going on lately. Stlwart111 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: Having !voted in the previous discussion, I am still mulling this one over. The article's main contributor has added a few sources since the last nomination. With the addition of the sources from Cincinnati Public Radio, we are starting to lean towards sufficient notability. Add in the selection as a NASA NIAC fellow, which was already known, she might begin to qualify either under WP:NSCIENTIST or WP:ANYBIO. I'll think it over for a couple more days, although I think if we could find just one more suitable source (secondary, independent, reliable), I'd feel just fine about changing from last time and keeping this one. As a side note, there seems to be an unusual amount of conflict between the article contributor and nominator. The nominator's insinuations in the opening statement are completely inappropriate and discussions between them both throughout the process have been...uncharitable. My own two cents are that, in order to avoid further conflict, both should avoid commenting on this AfD further and let the process simply carry itself out. -Pax Verbum 05:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - As I see it, she just doesn't pass notability test. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Procedural Keep - I have avoided actually !voting here because I was of the view that this sort of nonsense shouldn't be entertained, or dignified with a response. To be clear, in addition to the personal attacks and insinuations from the nominator, this nomination was clearly pointy; it was first (incorrectly) nominated for deletion while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc was open and leaning towards merge and redirect to this this article. The first nomination of this article was procedurally closed and this (equally incorrect) nomination was launched in its place two hours later. It is clearly designed to achieve the delete outcome that the nominator advocated for at that related AFD (in addition for providing a opportunity to publish personal attacks). This whole thing is incredibly poor form. Want an actual discussion about notability or an opportunity to fix any issues the article might have? Follow WP:BEFORE and you'll have plenty. Stlwart111 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • And just in case that isn't enough... good old fashioned keep per WP:ANYBIO for having made a significant contribution to her field. Until recently we had articles for 3 of her contributions to aeronautical engineering including Star Sailor Energy, Artificial neural membrane, and Aerospace Research Systems, Inc. #3 was merged to her article (as above), #1 was preemptively merged to her article, and #2 remains. But the fact remains she has made those contributions to her field and they have been recognised for their significant by her peers who have subsequently interviewed her and written about her to discuss said contribution. Stlwart111 00:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]


To join, sign your name at the /Participants page and add the main page to your watchlist.

Members can add {{User Paranormal1}}, {{User Paranormal2}}, {{User Paranormal3}}, {{User Paranormal4}}, or {{user paranormal}} to their user pages to identify themselves as members of the project. A list of members with these userboxes is available at Category:WikiProject Paranormal participants.


Stub templatesEdit

Boilerplate templatesEdit

Feel free to use these templates where appropriate. Any major changes should be brought up on the template talk page.
{{WikiProject Paranormal}}
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated NA-class)
This page 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.
  NA  This article has been rated as NA-Class on the project's quality scale.
{{WikiProject Paranormal user}}
  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"

Infoboxes templatesEdit


{{The Paranormal Barnstar}}

  The Paranormal Barnstar
The Project Paranormal Barnstar, awarded to users who have made a notable contribution to the project

See alsoEdit

Related WikiProjectsEdit


  • Cat scan - view recent changes to all articles in a given Category.
  • Duesentrieb's category tree - enhanced Category viewing, easily see parents and subcategories of a Category and the articles in them.