Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal

General information
Main project page	talk
Participants	talk
Project banner	talk
Project category	talk
Departments
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.

Goals

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.

Scope

Paranormal articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA			4	7			11
FL				1			1
GA		1	6	24			31
B	9	21	35	82		43	190
C	10	20	66	210		135	441
Start	1	6	54	391		450	902
Stub			6	80		149	235
List	1	4	11	39		10	65
Category					750		750
Disambig					8		8
File					24		24
Project					20		20
Template					21		21
NA				15	176		191
Other					6		6
Assessed	21	52	182	849	1,005	787	2,896
Unassessed				1			1
Total	21	52	182	850	1,005	787	2,897
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 8,316			Ω = 4.59

(Assessment log)

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

Anomalistics
Cryptozoology
Paranormal phenomena
Paranormal hoaxes and frauds
Parapsychology
Fringe science, protoscience, and pseudoscience
Ufology
Urban myths and legends
unexplained disappearances
Some conspiracy theories
megaliths and similar

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.

Recognized content

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

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.

Featured articles

Featured lists

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

Featured pictures

Líneas de Nazca, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 49

Good article nominees

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team release version selections

Reincarnation

To-do

Figure out what to do with old to-do lists...

Article alerts

Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Article alerts:

Articles for deletion

16 Jun 2026 – Jay Alani (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Nomadwikiholic1 (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
12 Jun 2026 – Fleur Leussink (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Deacon Vorbis (t · c); see discussion (9 participants; relisted)
28 May 2026 – Hupia (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Bohemian Baltimore (t · c); see discussion (10 participants; relisted)

Proposed deletions

undated – The Strange Tales of Oscar Zahn (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed

Categories for discussion

14 Apr 2026 – Category:Fictional characters who use magic (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by (Oinkers42) (t · c); see discussion
01 Apr 2026 – Category:Marvel Comics characters who use magic (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by SilviaASH (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

11 Jun 2026 – UAP FILES (talk · edit · hist) →United States UFO files was RfDed by CountryANDWestern (t · c); see discussion
11 Jun 2026 – THE UAP FILES (talk · edit · hist) →United States UFO files was RfDed by CountryANDWestern (t · c); see discussion
11 Jun 2026 – THE UFO FILES (talk · edit · hist) →United States UFO files was RfDed by CountryANDWestern (t · c); see discussion
11 Jun 2026 – THE UNITED STATES UFO FILES (talk · edit · hist) →United States UFO files was RfDed by CountryANDWestern (t · c); see discussion
11 Jun 2026 – UFO FILES (talk · edit · hist) →United States UFO files was RfDed by CountryANDWestern (t · c); see discussion
11 Jun 2026 – UNITED STATES UAP FILES (talk · edit · hist) →United States UFO files was RfDed by CountryANDWestern (t · c); see discussion
11 Jun 2026 – UNITED STATES UFO FILES (talk · edit · hist) →United States UFO files was RfDed by CountryANDWestern (t · c); see discussion
11 Jun 2026 – THE UNITED STATES UAP FILES (talk · edit · hist) →United States UFO files was RfDed by CountryANDWestern (t · c); see discussion
11 Jun 2026 – Fleur Leussink (talk · edit · hist) →Psychic RfDed by GearsDatapacks (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Good article nominees

04 Nov 2025 – Christopher Mellon (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Very Polite Person (t · c); start discussion
27 Sep 2025 – Bruce Cathie (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Very Polite Person (t · c); start discussion
15 Jun 2026 – The Dark Pictures Anthology: Little Hope (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by ZooBlazer (t · c) was closed

Articles to be split

26 Jan 2025 – UFO conspiracy theories (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Feoffer (t · c); see discussion

Articles for creation

02 Jun 2026 – Draft:Seton Miracles (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Octavius1981 (t · c)

Deletion sorting

Paranormal articles for deletion:

Click "[show]" to expand

Shortcut

WP:AFD/WOOWP:AFD/WOO

Paranormal deletion

Jay Alani

AfDs for this article:

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

Jay Alani is failing WP:NAUTHOR, As the references are not in-depth. The Hindu is discussing about his book Haunted: Terrifying Real Life Encounter with Ghost and Spirits, Vice is a features article, The Telegraph is about Ghost hunting activities, Pinkvillag is an interview, Variety is a about a horror film project. Rest are PR. Fails to meet wikipedia's notability criteria. Nomadwikiholic1 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related AfD discussions. Nomadwikiholic1 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Paranormal, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there are reviews of his books, that might help WP:NAUTHOR. I'd expect more reviews, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is only 1 reviews from The Hindu. Nomadwikiholic1 (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it isn't enough, but the way you phrased it made it sound like reviews wouldn't help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Leussink

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

Celebrity "psychic", self-help type figure. There's some coverage of her, but it's exclusively the credulous puff piece type of source ("I spoke to my dead father through a psychic medium – and I couldn’t believe what I was told", for example), which are of dubious reliability. I tried to look for more even-handed coverage and even negative/skeptical coverage, which you'd generally expect to find some of for notable "psychics", but found nothing really.

On top of that, there are definitely some WP:AISIGNS present here, combined with the perfect formal English and markup in a single edit from a brand new account, that wrote this comment when this was originally at RFD, demonstrating a lack of English proficiency. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spirituality, and Suspected AI-generated articles. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WP:FTN of discussion. Also pinging original RFD participants: GearsDatapacks and Myceteae. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And Krevionta; I don't know why Twinkle decided to notify GDP instead, oh well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is the brief RFD listing: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 11#Fleur Leussink. Krevionta created Fleur Leussink as a redirect to Psychic on June 11. The redirect was promptly nominated for deletion and then, as noted by the nom, Krevionta created the standalone article, all in the span of about 30 hours. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources that made me think twice were those from The Independent, but I realised that they were just as credulous as the others. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing NOLLM, being created unreasonably fast. Nobody writes with such a different level of proficiency, there is only one reasonable explanation for that. The sources also don't show SIGCOV, they are all credulous fluff. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft for further consideration. Prob no good sources will arise, but no rush. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AI-generated article about a non-notable psychic. There are lifestyle fluff pieces in outlets that are generally reliable but upon inspection these do not contribute to notability, as others have noted. The suggestion to send this to draft space when the current content is unusable per the LLM policy and there are no good sources is incoherent. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is a notable individual. The Independent has covered Leussink at least three times across different years, with articles written by different journalists about her work, and her life in details. In addition, at least two other reliable publications have written about her, which should be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. There are also numerous supporting references, which are considered reliable for Wikipedia.
I have revised the text and removed the LLM wording, so that should no longer be a reason to delete the article. Anyone may examine the current version, including with AI-detection tools
Xcccccccc123 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Xcccccccc123: you should only bold a WP:NOTVOTE, use italics for emphasis.
All of the text remaining in the article seems to be the LLM-generated text, and the Times source that you added is paywalled but the the title it seems to to be just as credulous as the rest of them. Why did you remove the {{circa}} template though? Personally I wouldn't waste any more time trying to fix this article. If you believe that this person is notable, then it's better to TNT and start over from scratch than trying to rescue an LLM text. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting the format. I do not see any remaining LLM wording. I assume it is good now, or at least at a point where any remaining issues can be handled with a cleanup tag, and I believe the discussion should focus on the notability of the individual. Xcccccccc123 (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily see that: Diff/1358982039/1359132033. The article was initially generated by an LLM, and the user who created it was the only contributor to the text before your edits. So any unchanged text is generated. If you believe that this person meets notability guidelines, then your best bet is to write a new article from scratch. We know from experience (and the study done by WikiEd) that trying to "fix" or "rescue" an LLM-generated article is more work than starting from scratch. We don't allow LLM-generated text in the encyclopaedia, so generated articles are deleted, regardless of the notability of their subjects. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- The Independent — Reliable; significant coverage: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/medium-fleur-reading-celebrity-psychic-b1987242.html
- The Independent — Reliable; significant coverage: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/psychic-medium-death-grief-b2643707.html
- The Times — Reliable; significant coverage: https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/article/the-psychic-wears-prada-meet-medium-fleur-lana-del-rey-s-grief-therapist-9h0g073wc
- Vogue Scandinavia — Reliable; significant coverage: https://www.voguescandinavia.com/articles/are-mediums-the-newest-wellness-trend
Xcccccccc123 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are published by reliable sources, but they are not independent from the subject. Both of the pieces published by The Independent are interviews which are not WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject, because the information comes directly from the subject (that's why the author parameters n {{cite interview}} should be set to the interviewee). That's different from a journalistic article where the journalist writes based on their own research. I can't read the article in The Times because it's paywalled (I might have access through WP:LIBRARY or my local library but I didn't check), and the piece in Vogue is is also an interview (but it is also paywalled so I can't be sure), but it is someone who went to see this supposed psychic that is being interviewed, so that might be the best of these four sources.
But none of that changes that the article currently fails WP:NOLLM, all of the prose in it was generated. You did a good job of removing the worst of it, but that just means that there is a smaller amount of generated text on the page (but the ratio is still the same). If you think that this person is notable, and you want there to be a BLP on them in the encylcopaedia, then your best bet is to just write a new article from scratch. Trying to "fix" or "rescue" an LLM-generated article is always going to be more more difficult and more work than to simply start from scratch. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, Thanks for explaining! Xcccccccc123 (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Netherlands, and California. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. LLM-generated text is a trap. The article looks good, you think you can use some of it...but I've tried this repeatedly, and it really is a nightmare, worse than writing a new article. And there is a huge risk that the AISIGNS are removed but the false sourcing is not, rendering it extremely hard to spot in the future. (This is in my opinion the worst possible outcome. Never fix LLM wording until LLM hallucinations have all been removed. It's like putting carpet over a big hole in the floor.) M kuhner (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Teen Vogue , a thesis and the Independent mentioned already, just not quite enough to show notability. TOOSOON maybe? Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 merge to Taíno mythology. No indicatation of a body of reliable sourcing to satisfy a stand alone page. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hupia

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

Merge Hupia to Taíno mythology

Nominator's rationale There are only a handful of sources mentioning "hupia" in passing. The topic does not have notability separate from the general subject of Taíno mythology. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Mythology, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Besides the one present in the article, found these sources:

- The hupia is a spirit of the dead in Taíno culture, as opposed to the goeiza, or spirit of the living. The hupia can adopt many forms, including that of fruit, but it usually appears without a face or looks like a deceased loved one. If they choose the latter, they'll be almost indistinguishable from the living. After death, the dead are supposed to go to Coaybay, a place whose name has been variously translated as "dwelling place of the dead" or "abode of the absent ones". It is apparently remote and inaccessible to the living, viewed as a separate place with its own leader. The hupia leave Coaybay at night to move among the living. In the 15th century, Friar Ramón Pané recorded these Taíno beliefs about death and the afterlife, and while his accounts are the most contemporary writings about the Taino culture from European first contact, his Catholicism also likely affected how he preserved the information. The easiest way to spot a hupia is their lack of a navel or face. Their missing face signifies that they've lost their identity by passing into death (which also explains how they can adopt different forms, since they're no longer a unique individual). The missing navel shows that they lost their place in the Taino community when they died. The navel is the original link to the mother, and in Taino culture, determining your place in the community. Given the differences in belief about death between the Taino and the European colonizers, its difficult to tell if the ancient Taino actually feared hupias or simply accepted them as part of life. In some legends, they seduced women or kidnapped anyone who was out after sundown. If a living man tried to embrace a hupia woman, she disappeared. In other legends, hupias slept during the day and ventured out at night to dance and celebrate. They were sometimes linked with bats, and were apparently fond of eating guava fruit. The hupia made the leap to popular culture in 199o in Michael Crichton's novel, Jurassic Park. In the book, the hupia became a vampiric creature that kidnapped small children at night. It's possible that this version of the hupia lives on in contemporary folklore, separated from the original hupia by both the passage of time and a change in belief system.
- The Hupia. As Jurassic Park is located on an island about a hundred miles off Costa Rica, InGen is, from the start, associated with the Costa Rican "hupia" spirits that are purported to dwell on offshore islands and kidnap children. The injured InGen worker claims that a hupia was responsible for his plight. These hupia prove to be the most notable symbol in the novel: after Tina is attacked, Dr. Guitierrez's research indicates that several babies around Costa Rica have recently been attacked by lizards. Bearing these events in mind, along with the fact that the injured InGen worker is described as "a boy," we infer at this point that the hupia have something to do with InGen and lizards. Later, it is more than mere coincidence that the first big dinosaur attack happens to Tim and Lex. The dying guard's talk about hupia links the concept of the hupia to both the word "raptor" and the local lizard attacks. Once we become aware that InGen has been breeding dinosaurs-not mere lizards-the connection between hupia and the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park is obvious. Indeed, the dinosaurs InGen has created seem to instinctively attack children. Crichton uses this idea to vilify the dinosaurs, making, them even more fearsome forces of evil than they might be if they were not especially targeting defenseless children.
- This one's horror novel, having a page about encounters with hupias.....that's what I could make out of it.
- Pg. 64 of this
Multiple journals

There are also some beat-around-the-bush kinds of sources, which can help to expand the article. Overall, the coverage looks pretty enough to have a standalone article. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 03:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BhikhariInformer: I feel the need to point out that almost none of these are reliable sources. The first is by a "folklore blogger", the second is a SparkNotes guide to the novel Jurassic Park, the third is a work of modern fiction, and the fourth is by Theresa Bane, a self-proclaimed "vampirologist" whose books have been causing problems on mythology articles for years. The fifth is simply a PDF: I can't see anything to suggest that the text contained therein appeared in an academic journal, and the poor formatting seems to argue against that conclusion. The sixth is an article from an academic journal, but it doesn't contain the word "hupia"; does it use an alternative spelling that I'm not recognising? The seventh both includes the word "hupia" and seems to be reliable, but all it does is translate the word as "specter", which doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for analysing them....I hadn't dug that deep! I withdraw my keep vote. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page right now is bad, but it clearly can be improved and expanded with decent citations. I think there are enough sources for this to merit its own article. The Taino mythology page clearly also needs a lot of work, but merging this seems like a step backwards. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by BhikhariInformer prove this topic easily passes WP:GNG.
Merge to Taíno mythology as proposed by the nominator. The shortcomings in my sources have been pointed out by Michael Aurel. So, I guess the two other keep votes also gets discredited since the sources I had presented have been rebutted. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:19, 19 June 2026 (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.

Project source list

This section indexes sources frequently cited or discussed in articles related to the project area. It includes both sources that have been discussed in a formal WP:RFC at WP:RSN; as well as others discussed at RSN, here, and elsewhere.

WP:RSN RfCs


Source	Outcome	Logged at WP:RSP?	Notes
Journal of Scientific Exploration	Deprecated	Yes	A 2025 RfC found that the Journal of Scientific Exploration has been "credibly accused of publishing pseudoscience, including speculative studies presuming the existence of ghosts and magic, and should be deprecated".
NewsNation	Generally Unreliable	Yes	A 2025 RfC found that NewsNation "is generally unreliable for the topic of UFOs or UAPs". (WP:UFONATION)
Nick Pope	Generally Unreliable	No	A 2025 RfC related to Nick Pope's reliability for paranormal topics found that he is generally unreliable for claims by the disclosure movement but "might still be usable for information about" it.
Popular Mechanics	No Consensus	Yes	Specific to the topic of UFOs / UAPs, a 2025 RfC failed to reach a consensus, however, many editors believed "caution is required in order to avoid citing headlines while articles should be considered on a case-by-case basis, providing attribution where necessary for questionable claims within this topic area".
Richard Dolan	Generally Unreliable	No	A 2025 RfC noted that "compelling arguments against reliability have been made and are unrefuted".
The Debrief (thedebrief.com)	Deprecated	Yes	In a 2025 RfC, there was a "clear and overwhelming consensus that The Debrief and its author Micah Hanks are generally unreliable and deprecated as a fringe source that lacks fact-checking or editorial oversight". (WP:THEDEBRIEF)

Other discussions

Avi Loeb's reliability was discussed in November 2025 at RSN.

Membership

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.

Wikitext

userbox

where used

{{User WikiProject Paranormal}}

This user participates in WikiProject Paranormal.

linked pages

{{User WikiProject Paranormal alt}}

This user is a member of WikiProject Paranormal.

linked pages

Other

Wikitext

userbox

where used

{{User Paranormal2}}

This user is a member of WikiProject Paranormal, which is dedicated to improving articles on paranormal subjects.

linked pages

{{User Paranormal3}}

This user is a member of WikiProject Paranormal, a project dedicated to improving articles on paranormal subjects.

linked pages

{{User Paranormal4}}

This user is a member of WikiProject Paranormal, a project dedicated to improving articles on paranormal subjects.

linked pages

{{user paranormal}}

This user thinks you're watching them. Watch other paranormal activity at WikiProject Paranormal.

linked pages

Templates

Paranormal navbar -
({{Paranormal}})

Stub templates

General stub -
{{Paranormal-stub}}
Cryptozooloogy stub -
{{Cryptozoology-stub}}, {{Cryptid-stub}}
Parapsychology stub -
{{Para-psych-stub}}
Mythology stub -
{{Myth-stub}}
{{UFO-stub}}
{{UFO-bio-stub}}
{{UFO-book-stub}}

Boilerplate templates

Feel free to use these templates where appropriate. Any major changes should be brought up on the template talk page.

Paranormal

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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"

This page discusses a military black project.
Such projects are highly classified initiatives often concealed from the public. Due to their secretive nature, authoritative sources, such as government or defense contractors, may neither confirm nor acknowledge their existence. As a result, even the most reliable sources may rely on speculation.
It is crucial to ensure that the article is supported by well-documented and reliable sources. Avoid unverifiable claims, conjecture, or vague predictions.

For further guidance, consult the black project working group of the military history project.

Infoboxes templates

Paranormal terminology -
({{Infobox paranormal term}})
Cryptids and creatures/entities -
({{Infobox mythical creature}})
Abductees, contactees, writers, researchers, etc -
({{Infobox person}})
Paranormal events -
({{Infobox event}})

Barnstar

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

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

v t e Wikipedia help pages
*Visit the Teahouse* or the Help desk for an interactive Q & A forum. FAQs (?) Reference desks (?) Noticeboards (?) Cheatsheet (?) Directories (?) Village pumps** (?)
About Wikipedia (?)	Administration Purpose Principles Policies and guidelines What Wikipedia is not Disclaimer (parental advice) Making requests Who writes Wikipedia?
Help for readers (?)	FAQ Copyright Glossary Mobile access Navigation Other languages Saved pages Searching Students Viewing media
Contributing to Wikipedia (?)	Advice for young editors Avoiding common mistakes Etiquette Simplified Manual of Style Simplified rule-set "Ignore all rules" "The rules are principles" Style-tips Tip of the day Your first article (article wizard)
Getting started (?)	Why create an account? Introductions by topic Graphics tutorials Picture tutorial IRC (live chat) tutorial VisualEditor user guide
Dos and don'ts (?)	Accessibility Biographies Biographies (living) Categorization Consensus Discussions Disambiguation Images Leads Links Lists References Tables Titles (of articles)
How-to pages and information pages (?)	Appealing blocks Article deletion Categories Citations/references Referencing for beginners Citation Style 1 Cite errors References and page numbers Convert Diff Editing Minor edit toolbar edit conflict Find sources Files Footnotes Image deletion Infoboxes Linking (link color) Logging in Merging New page review Page name Renaming pages Redirect Passwords Email confirmation Reverting Simple vandalism cleanup Talk pages (archiving simple archiving) User contributions WP search protocol
Coding (?)	Wiki markup Barcharts Calculations Characters Columns Elevation Hidden text HTML Lists Magic words Music symbols Sections Sounds Tables Templates Transclusion URL Visual files
Directories (?)	Abbreviations AI Departments Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Guidelines Manual of Style Policies Tasks Tips Tools
Missing Manual Ask for help on your talk page (?)

v t e WikiProject Council
General	WikiProject Council Talk Guidelines WikiProjects Task forces Technical notes Dealing with inactive WikiProjects Assessment FAQ RfC Work via WikiProjects
Directories and reports	Directory Proposals Deletion Signpost Shortcuts Popular pages Database reports New Changes Watchers
Culture and the arts	Arts Music Performing Plastic Visual Broadcasting Crafts and hobbies Entertainment Games and toys Food and drink Internet culture Language and literature Biography Linguistics Media Philosophy and religion Sports
Geographical	Bodies of water Cities Countries Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Landforms Maps Parks, conservation areas and historical sites
History and society	History and society Business and economics Education Military and warfare Politics and government Transportation
Science, technology and engineering	Science Biology Chemistry Economics Geosciences Information science Mathematics Medicine Meteorology Physics Space Technology Time
Wikipedia assistance and tasks	Contents systems Maintenance Files Article improvement and grading Classroom projects WikiProjects

Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal

Contents

Goals

Scope

Categories

Recognized content

Featured articles

Featured lists

Good articles

Featured pictures

Good article nominees

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team release version selections

To-do

Article alerts

Deletion sorting

Paranormal deletion

Jay Alani

Fleur Leussink

Hupia

Project source list

WP:RSN RfCs

Other discussions

Membership

Templates

Stub templates

Boilerplate templates

Infoboxes templates

Barnstar

See also

Related WikiProjects

Tools