Nominating this for deletion. We have zero verifiable primary sources here — every citation traces back to forum posts or "unverified leaked documents" that no one can actually produce. This reads like fan fiction with footnotes. PublicArchive.wiki isn't the place to host someone's ARG.
Delete. Agree completely. I've gone through every reference. Not one links to an archived primary document. Even the FOIA response in ref 18 is a photo of a photo posted to a forum, provenance unknown.
Keep. The subject itself is notable regardless of whether the underlying claims are true — that's true of every article we have in Category:Internet folklore. We're not asserting Second Sight is real, we're documenting that a large, persistent community believes it is. That's a legitimate encyclopedic subject on its own terms.
Then the article needs to read like it's about a belief, not like it's confirming the belief. Half these section headers state alleged claims as established background. Compare "Alleged methodology" (fine) to "The magnetosphere anomaly claim" (fine) to literally just "The February 1995 event" (not fine — we haven't established there was an "event" at all).
Fair. I'll retitle that section if the article survives AfD. Doesn't change my keep vote.
Merge into Mandela Effect or into a new combined "2000s internet folklore" article. Doesn't need a standalone page.
Keep, weakly. The artifact archive linked in External Links has over 400 submissions at this point. Whatever you think of the theory, that's a real, documented body of community activity spanning two decades. That alone clears notability for me.
Result: No consensus to delete. Article retained. Notability concerns remain flagged at top of article. Revisit in 12 months if sourcing hasn't improved. closed by admin
I added a line noting that the 5760Hz tone described in the Analog Capture section matches a frequency my dad's old shortwave radio picked up the same week in Feb 1995. He wrote the date in his logbook. I have a photo of the page. Why does this keep getting reverted?
Because a photo of a logbook you own isn't a verifiable source, it's testimony. I believe that you believe it happened. That's not the same as something we can cite. Post it to the artifact archive linked in External Links instead — that's exactly what that archive is for. This talk page isn't the place either, technically, but I'm leaving your comment up because it's at least on-topic.
Respectfully — how many logbooks, tapes, and home videos does this page need before "testimony" becomes "pattern"? I've read the archive. It's not one guy's dad anymore.
That's a completely fair question and honestly not one I have a good answer to. It's still not how sourcing works here though. Sorry.
Reference 8 links to a wiki revision that's been deleted. Also flagging: the last four edits to the "magnetosphere anomaly" section were all made by accounts created the same week, all editing nothing else. Might want to lock this section.
Semi-protected the article. New/unregistered accounts can't edit for now. action taken
Ref 8 restored from mirror, still garbage sourcing but at least it resolves now.
Got an email through the archive contact form from someone claiming to have a full, unedited VHS tape from the disputed week, not just a clip. They don't want to post it publicly yet. Has this happened before? What's our process here, if any?
It's happened a few times over the years, usually goes nowhere — person gets cold feet, or it turns out to be an unrelated tape they misremembered. Ask for a single unedited still frame first, not the whole tape. If it's real they should have no problem with that.
Keep us posted either way. Genuinely curious this time, for what it's worth.
[No further updates as of this revision.]