Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity death hoax (2nd nomination)

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 keep, based on general user consensus. On an aside, a possible merger may want to be explored based on the below comments. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 02:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity death hoax[edit]

Article is a stub. Article is most likely not notable and only gives credence and power to those who continue to perpetuate hoaxes Most importantly, the site from which the "hoax" originated from allows the end user to enter in any name into a form, as of which it will be inserted into a pre-made template, regardless of gender or social status. I could very well put in the name of Spot and still get the same old article, 'Spot died today filming in New Zealand blablabla'. Considering this, and considering that this article mainly surrounds this, it might as well be deleted. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 06:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; first AFD was just this week and ended in a speedy keep, which means keep the article, not delete it again a few weeks later!SPNic (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In all fairness, the reason it closed as a speedy keep had nothing to do with the merits of the article. That nomination had been made by a banned user, whereas there is no such problem with this nomination. Still, the two articles cited thus far from msn.com are enough to demonstrate that this is notable enough to merit its own article. One of the byproducts of the Internet era is that it is easier to spread a rumor now than it was 20 years ago. Mandsford (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't cut in line. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the first nomination ended in the speedy keep, said nomination was performed by a banned user and indeed did include a few who did propose its deletion - or merger with Pseudocide. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Manning's note on the talk page explains why I have put this forth for AfD. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A quick goole book search shows that this is a notable and scholarly discussed phenomenon. I expanded the arcticle accordingly a little bit; just to move it in the right direction. Still there is a plenty of raw material outside for a decent article even without listmania kicking in. - Altenmann >t 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to pseudocide. There is nothing improper about this AfD being brought because of the procedural close. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect or merge would be inappropriate. I've explained why on Talk:Pseudocide, but I'm going to repost my comment here for the convenience of everyone involved in this discussion:

My preliminary search of sources reveals a wider scope for [celebrity death hoaxes]. Celebrity death hoaxes may include the various types of myths that arise out of collective grief surrounding celebrity death. Phenomena that would fit this general scope would include the death rumors that arose after Michael Jackson's death, the belief that a celebrity is dead and has been replaced (the Paul is dead idea), the idea that a celebrity death was the result of a conspiracy (JFK), that the circumstances of the death were falsely reported (the idea that Courtney Love killed Kurt), or that a celebrity is still alive (Elvis sightings). These phenomena are not within the scope of [pseudocide] because they are sociological creatures, a specific type of mass delusion, rather than a type of fraud. (Some editing in brackets for clarity.)--Gimme danger (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of room for expansion here. Being a stub is not a valid deletion criterion, nor is refusal to cover an extant sociological phenomenon out of fear that it encourages the people who participate in it. Concerns about Wikipedia's dealings with the sorts of death hoaxes that have arisen over the last week are a matter of policy and should be taken to the village pump, not AfD. --Gimme danger (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced and balanced for such a new stub. I agree with Gimme danger that pseudocide is sufficiently distinct as a topic that they should not be merged. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A phenomenon which has been around for a long time and which has suitable references to allow a good article. Edison (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]