Talk:Celebrity Paranormal Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

I've....err, made a start. Not quite finished yet, but if anyone else has anything to add, please do. Can't say that i've seen this show, but i've tried to tighten up the article at any rate. Jammy simpson 17:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Added more specific tag, as I've not seen the show. Jammy simpson 17:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan, I'll try to add what I can.Crazedgiggles 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Voting

KEEP - The article could use clean up but the show may become a popular like Ghost Hunters has proven popular. At least give it a chance and see what happens. Cyberia23 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible future notability is not a criterion for inclusion now.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

delete? wth! i just watched this (actually only about 1/2) and left with so many questions that i went to wiki. whoever suggested deletion was fairly mistaken, to put it nicely71.107.69.226 05:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

KEEP - The article does need clean up and some work, but I think that we should keep the article. I agree with Cyberia, we should give it a chance; the article is still extremely new so people may not have had a chance to wander over to it yet. -Elizabennet 23:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Its not a Show worthy of keeping in Wikipedia, its staged and fake, it will likely be forgotten after a few weeks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.138.95.39 (talk • contribs) .

Keep. I find the term "not notable," at least for the time being, to be an opinion and not fact. The article wasn't up for more than 36 hours and you proposed a deletion. This would be understandable if this show were an obscure public access show, or a show that flopped after one episode, but thus far it's not the latter, and it's a cable TV show for the former. My worry is that if it gets deleted now, people will take it as a message not to remake the article at a future time when/if it really does become a huge or even minor hit for VH-1. Maikeru 17:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep - It's a show on a national network. How could that possibly be non-notable? Even if it only runs for one season, it would still have enough notability to be included in the Wikipedia. And I agree that it seems fake, which could only lend to the notability of it, due to people criticizing VH1 for airing it as being real. -GamblinMonkey 21:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep - It still exists, and still ought to be noted. Whether or not its faked, that would provide controversy, and would be notable.Mdesrosii 04:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

KEEP - Its a good show, and it does deserve a spot on Wikipedia. Good for people who wanna know about scary places --Kreepman 01:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warson Asylum

Does anyone know if Warson Asylum actually exists? There's no wiki article, and if this whole "pearl" myth is real, it could, perhaps, do with an article. So... anyone? -Elizabennet 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well not all historic sites have an entry on Wikipedia, but what I find curious is a Google search for Warson Asylum only comes up with VH1 hits. Warson Asylum is probably not its true name. I'm sure the site is a real prison but it must go officially by another name. It bears investigating. Cyberia23 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I find this whole show dubious. Unlike Ghost Hunters, which keeps cameras running at all times, this one has huge gaps of time where anyone (producers anyone?) can go in and move things around when the "investigators" aren't looking. The sheer amount of activity they claim to have "documented" seems fake. It also bugs me when any series only shows the reaction of the participants, not what they are reacting to. Does anyone else think that this one is completely staged? -- Mapetite526 21:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that whenever they seem to actually catch something, like a shadow or an image on film or get an EVP, they don't go back over and review it or treat it as evidence. Last show when the chicks were in the insane asylum and the one had to stir the water in the tub to "provoke" activity, a camera caught a strange image looming above one of them for a moment, which looked like a lens reflection or a double image caused by interference. Back at home base however, they supposedly saw it on the screen and were like "What was that? Did you see that? OMG!!!" and thats it. They don't go back and review the video to see what it was. This tells me that things are filmed out of sequence or added later by editors to be scarier, and that looks fake as hell. If they actually caught something, you'd think they'd flag it and review it later. I know these celebs are not as technical as the Ghost Hunters teams and probably don't know how to rewind a DVR or hav the patience to watch hours of footage, but I know they're not alone. They say they are, but there is camera crews on site too. How else can they explain all those dramatic camera angles they get of the celebs wandering around from a different point of view. I'm kind of surprised by their Ouija board bit at the end, where they try to talk to spirits - I'm waiting any day now for a religious group to go apeshit about it and force the show off the air - thus ratings will skyrocket in defiance and earn more money. Cyberia23 00:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to me the seance portions are the fakest part of it. -- Mapetite526 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, it looks like they put the people into specific locations then trigger things. Not sure how they do it though. Some of it is deffinately real. -- lastchanch 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

it seems like it would be rather easy to send a crew member in before the celebrities go in and have them do whatever they need to do. i'd be pretty wary of a show that is allegedly documenting a haunted area, that is comprised primarily of celebrities; not to mention how you can clearly see edited or exaggerated "hauntings". incidentally, when i was watching the second episode, the "scream" in the scene with traci bingham and rachel hunter sounds uncannily like a stock scream added later. cma 09:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

An anon user said Warson is "Norwich State Hospital" which I found links to on abandonedbutnot forgotten.com and another site, but Norwich looks nothing like Warson did in the show. So where the f*** is this Warson place and why can't anyone find it? If I recall the show Warson had two large wings and a center castle looking structure. Norwich looks more gothic with smaller wings that jut out in different directions like Waverly Hills. Cyberia23 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Warson Asylum" is the Norwich State Hospital, in Preston, CT. I live about 30 miles from it and saw an article about the filming in the local newspaper, The Day. User: Chriskennedy311

Okay, now the list says Norwich and Warson aren't the same? Whatever, I don't care anymore & not gonna argue about it. Cyberia23 06:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Go to the link below (cut and paste) to read about MTV's "Fear" which was the same show without celebs. This speaks of some of the locations. Oh, by the way.....BOO

[[1]]

No need to cut and paste. Simply put the link in between the brackets. -- Mapetite526 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So they're using fictitious names for the places they investigate? Wonder why they decided to do that? Cyberia23 05:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)