Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clues that 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 Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clues that Paul is dead

Mostly Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Triwbe (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just re-stating material deleted to keep the original page more on topic. And if it wasnt neutral you'd delete it for supporting/not supporting something that can't be seen as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewy5000 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we take that as a Keep then ? --Triwbe (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if the clues were trimmed down to what's verifiable they wouldn't be such a problem for the main article. WillOakland (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. Page already exists. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncritical and poorly presented original research. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a constant query at Paul is dead for information about these purported "clues," many of which are well known. Serving readers is what wikipedia should try to do. Admittedly, this will be a difficult page to keep encyclopediac (or however you spell that) but you could say the same about thousands of other wikipedia articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's no original research I can see - the article lacks inline references, but contains links to third party sources referencing all the information. Wily D 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links are to primary sources and web sites, not to reliable sources that actually discuss the "Paul is Dead" nonsense. WillOakland (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some need to be reminded that wikipedia is a tertiary source, making use of the secondary sources who in turn have examined and given an opinion on the primary sources? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between primary and secondary sources is not really relevent to "original research" - and in reality, any article that's developed uses a mix of "primary", "secondary" and "tertiary" sources (not the least of which is caused by those terms being convienent fictions). Note that merging is likely to create an overly long article, which will need to be resplit by article size guidelines ... Wily D 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uncritical and poorly presented original research. However the subject topic is excellent and I look forward to reading a better version of this. A fine candidate for improvement, rather than deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be covered in the existing article to the extent that the claims are verifiable. WillOakland (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. The title is odd, too. Happyme22 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Paul is dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legotech (talk • contribs)

Change to Delete per the snarky edit summary by WilyD LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced content into Paul is dead, and then Delete. The existence of this as a separate WP article is invitation for it to become a POV-fork. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Paul is dead, and then Delete. Sourcing is kind of complicated with conspiracy theory- and urban legend-type phenomena, because by their very nature they're "questionably sourced." Skaraoke (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article allready exists, high extent of original reserach.--Bit Lordy (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please DON'T merge this into Paul is Dead; better to kill this article. This was originally part of Paul is Dead - that was how it was created - but it swamped that article, taking up far more than half of it. Merging will just ruin two articles by creating and overwhelming mess. (I already voted keep) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information is aranged really badly, but it's intereting non-the-less.--76.246.176.32 (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because it's interetsing doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bit Lordy (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. Interesting reading material, but really has no place in an encyclopedia. If you want, you could host it on your userpage and a link could be provided via the talk page. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 01:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mad trivia. Strictly Beatles fansite material. tomasz. 11:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be about trivia, but discussion of trivia isn't itself trivial when interest in that "trivia" has expanded to the level of Paul's (or Elvis') death. This isn't about questioning whether or not Paul is dead, it's about studying the cultural phenomenon of a mass belief that Paul was dead, and its origins in particular. A fansite dealing with this would be strongly POV and OR. A wikipedia page dealing with it ought to respect WP:NPOV and and WP:NOR, to a level that gives a significant benefit. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i understand the significance of the Paul is dead phenomenon, but as has been mentioned, that page exists. This is a list of clues supporting that thesis, thus why i believe it merits the trivia definition. tomasz. 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the other comments on this page. This AfDed page came from the Paul is dead page. Arguments have been presented (sheer size, as much as anything) as to why two is better than one. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i did note that fact. i still think that if the info in this article is too much for Paul is dead it should be deleted as picayune trivia and largely made of original research. tomasz. 10:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as natural content outgrowth of Paul is Dead. These things here are ancient, and should be easily source-able, even though no one's done it yet. This shit's been around longer than most Wikipedians have been alive. Ford MF (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject adequately covered by Paul is dead.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge. There are no reliable sources used to verify the claims made, thus the content is original research, which lacks notability. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Article needs work" is not a valid criterion for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I had thought the article could be saved by being worked on, I would have said so. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:32, 15 June 2008 (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.