Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul is dead

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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). — Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is dead[edit]

Delete - Popular urban myth that's been looking for sources for 1 year. Although very interesting to read, I just don't think that it's noteable. The 2 articles are riddled with original research and all the infomation here is specified on the individual album/single articles anyway. In no way am I trying to be controvesial by AfDing these. Thoughts? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (re: Paul is dead). It is indeed notable. The article is undergoing intensive restructuring at the moment which has involved the removal of all the non-sourced "clues" and will continue to focus upon shortening the article to a referenced, encyclopaedic entry rather than a place for followers of the myth to post their theories and clues. Certaintly there are plenty of sources out there regarding this, it's just no-one has gotten round to it yet I guess. Liverpool Scouse 19:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There may be pleanty of sources, but are they reliable. If "nobody's gotten round to it" after 1 year, doesn't that make the article very un-important. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not that it's unimportant, it's that content issues such as those I listed above have been seen as primary issues to be resolved. We've just started doing that, and the article is being hacked and trimmed, with references presumedly to follow that. Within WP:BEATLES, it's been rated as High on the Importance scale and B-class on the assessment scale. Liverpool Scouse 19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep there are two entire books written on the subject which are mentioned in the references section thus I don't see how WP:NOTE comes into play. I just did a quick Nexis search, it's been mentioned hundreds of times (almost two dozen in the New York Times alone), so there's plenty of material out there to fix it. The article needs oodles of work, but not deletion. --JayHenry 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the Clues article (linked to near the end of the article) would be considered Original Research, not this one. This talks about the media stir surrounding the hoax. It definitely needs better references and hopefully this AfD nomination will wake up the contributors. - Cyborg Ninja 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No issue of notability or WP:CITE based on the 5 inline citations and 2 book references. Looks like some OR in at least one section, but OR issues are generally a cleanup issue, not an AfD one. I'd say the "Clues" article is the more specious of the two, any useful information there should probably be merged into this one. The topic of a hoax that made international news is the article, not the trivial minutia about that hoax. -Markeer 19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the "Clues" stuff was originally in the main article but was farmed off into a new one, as the clues were original research and attracted all the conspiracy theorists to come and add new "clues" they had "found" themselves into the article. Seperating them reduced article dispruption however taking into account the above perhaps the Clues article should go altogether, or be reduced to the most notable ones that can be referenced to several sources. Liverpool Scouse 19:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, they need work rather than deletion. Darrenhusted 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well known urban legend, article is well-documented. Corvus cornix 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references and links are there, but not in the favoured inline style. No matter, we are not trying to get this article to GA but save it from the chop. Further, how is any source regarding a rumour ever going to be reliable? Also, there are over 300 articles that link to that page - that is a lot of potential redlinks. LessHeard vanU 19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Very notable urban legend, article needs cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources are given. Beorhtric 19:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely not non-notable. —METS501 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember looking up references for this urban legend within the last year. Was there a similar article up for AFD? I do not see that this one was previously put up for deletion. It was widely written up in mainstream press numerous times from the year the hoax or urban legend was launched to the present. Edison 20:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: One of the most famous urban legends of the last century. As mentioned above, the nom has confused "sources" with "inline citations." WP:V requires the former, and does not require the latter. One of the sources listed is a book about this rumor. RGTraynor 20:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notable urban legend. Multiple books about the topic, hundreds of other media articles and references. John Cardinal 20:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep obviously. Extremely notable. However, Suggested clues for the rumour "Paul is dead" is a problematic article because it doesn't cite a single source and probably includes a lot of original research. Make that a priority for WP:BEATLES. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can tell who was born after 1980 in this one. Mandsford 21:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to get me to change my mind...? ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beatles-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - even I've heard of this. Books were written about it. I guess it is trivial, in a way, but deserves an article due to the attention it received for years. If the article needs improvement, it's still no need to delete. BTW, regarding inline citations - I think it's reasonable to require them on any sourced article, to prove that the Wiki editors haven't simply been injecting WP:OR into the article willy-nilly. And as Paul McCartney is still (purportedly) a living person, W's biographical rules require that we be very strict in requiring everything to be well-sourced. And hey, also, Wikipedia's an encyclopedia: footnotes make our articles look better. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of which are reasonable points, but the fact of the matter is that an increasing number of people appear to feel that a dearth of inline citations, even when the article as a whole is unimpeachably sourced, constitutes grounds for deletion. This curious notion has no basis in policy. RGTraynor 05:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep both. The first three words of the nominator's own comments at the top say it all. Many articles, books, etc. Clear case of WP:SNOWBALL here. 23skidoo 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mandsford hits the nail on the head here. Nick mallory 00:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It's so notable that it's even cited at WP:FRINGE as an example of a fringe theory that deserves an article! Vashti 03:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep. This is one of the best-conceived "hoaxes" of the 20th Century. There are many books and websites devoted to this construct. If it happened today it would be called "viral". WWGB 05:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for the main article per almost everybody above. No opinion about the "clues" article. --Metropolitan90 05:57, 5 August 2007 (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.