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 Redirect to Ouija#Criticism. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouija Board Criticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

This is article is, by its title and content, solely for criticism of Ouija. That makes it inherently a page without balance, and inherently violating WP:NPOV. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article violates the neutral point of view and is written in a non-encyclopedic fashion. The solid information and associated references should be merged into Ouija. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a WP:POVFORK of Ouija that appears to be solely devoted to the POV that Ouija leads to contact with demons and causes insanity. There have been repeated attempts (against consensus) to add this same material at Ouija that is not only poorly sourced, but gives WP:UNDUE weight to a Christian-centric view of the subject. There is also the problem that the material in the article is a WP:COPYVIO, apparently being lifted directly from someone called Mary Thomas Guicson- LuckyLouie (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Ouija per Cullen328 (whose !vote appears to be actually a Merge). Delete per NatGertler. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to encourage a "merge" result because, judging from Talk:Ouija, the editors there are already aware of this material, and have been working on the question of the appropriateness of the inclusion; they are able to include it without the "merge" push, and I don't want the result here to be suggesting that this material has merit beyond what they are already considering. (Of course, the copyvio concerns make a merge call even less appropriate.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't merge. POV fork, and due to the copyvio concerns the content should not be merged with the main article.--hkr Laozi speak 03:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the copyright issue is a result of earlier periods in which this material was to be found in Ouija itself. I would tend to the view that its rejection over the years argues against merger back into the main article. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Changed my vote to Delete as the current article sucks bigtime! Dwain (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC) ((OLD COMMENT)) This information originated on Wikipedia in 2005. It is non-POV because it makes no conclusions on four groups' variant critical opinions by doctors, paranormal researchers, religious and occult practitioners. It was for years in the article called Ouija. The main entry discussing Ouija Boards is under Ouija. There are many Wikipedia articles that go into various aspects of their subjects and continue sections on other pages. To supress sourced and valid criticism of a subject that is called a toy by one group of people and an occult device by various others is kind of strage. In fact, William Fuld, the boards main manufacturer claimed it to be a spiritual instrument. And to suggest that criticism of Ouija Boards is a fringe view is rather bizarre as LuckLouie states elsewhere, because if one actually does an internet search, by far the most common view of the board is that it is an occultic or spiritual device and not a board game. Dwain (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I ask why? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to Ouija. This is an important aspect of Ouija boards. If there is a copyright violation then have a section for criticism. It is much more important than the "in popular culture" section which is now in the article. In fact almost all the pop culture references depend on the critical view. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:POVFORK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Redirect, per Hobit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Ouija. There is no question that this is critised it need to be mentioned, but in the main artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm sure that what makes a Ouija board fun is the feeling that, just maybe, you might really be contacting the spirits. If it was just a toy (in the minds of the users) then it would have never become popular enough to have a WP article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge - Per WP:POVFORK (I know, it is interesting I am using this as rational to keep when others using the same link as rational to delete). Reading this, it specifically states "Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.". I believe this is an appropriate split off article, as I can see it grow in size - off hand, there are plenty of RS that could be included. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - I believe the article could benefit from cleanup - each POV should be broken out into its own section. I also believe that the in line references need to continue - what is there is definitely encylopedic IMO. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not really an AfD issue, its a fork on a notable subject, and whether a separate article is appropriate should be an editorial decision.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear WP:POVFORK and as others have pointed out most of the material originated on Wikipedia but was rejected from the ouija page. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I too believe the article could benefit from clean-up and it should be merged directly back into Ouija. The main article has excluded this and as such has taken on an unbalanced POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've given the article a quick once-over. Please take a look at it! It's still in progress. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved! Will support a merge. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment - Might it be an idea for me to include rebuttals to each criticism given here (with appropriate weight for each one) and then move the article to a page such as 'Reaction/Assessment/Cultural Reaction to Ouija Board'? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouija is not so long an article that a fork is called for. If there are relevant things to be said about reaction/assessment/heebie-jeebies/whatever, then they belong in the primary article. This fork appears to have been created not because forking was needed, but because the editor wished to avoid the editing of Ouija. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It meets all relevant guidelines for an article (including POVFORK and WP:N) but weakly support editorial merge as the parent article is short enough the material will fit. My one worry is that it will have too much of an UNDUE impact on the parent article. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new, improved, shorter article would fit easily into the parent article. It would not be undue since the criticism of ouija boards is a very important aspect. In fact it is the main reason they are mentioned in the news media or by scholars. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've plugged it in to the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, nice job! Only comment is that your edit summary should clarify the article from which the merged information came just to keep the attribution in line with our rules. I made a null edit with an edit summary to cover it. Hope you don't mind. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing !vote to redirect now that the material from this article is there, we can't delete (attribution/copyright issues), so a redirect is clearly the way to go. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ouija#Criticism. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to finish implementing the obvious merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, nicely done merge, no need for the article. --Worm 13:03, 18 November 2010 (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.