Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fan death

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. DS 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan death

original research Angkonk 03:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fan death, how scary.... - Missvain 03:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipediarules2221 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - completely implausible original research. MER-C 04:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - original research and nonsensical. Yuser31415 ^{talk|contribs} 04:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Jeez! Now I know how my cat died! Thanks for the info Dr. Kyung Goo Hai! Per nom... ;) Spawn Man 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup POV, cite sources properly, and include a section about how the myth is false. Mishatx 06:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems to be a real phenomenon, and not a recent one, based on the 1997 Straight Dope article at http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a970912.html This is not an article about a scientific phenomenon, but rather about a widely-believed urban legend. The article is notoriginal research; it has two references which were formerly listed as external links, and several different editors have worked on it. Angkonk (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)'s only contributions so far have been three AfD nominations. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Actually this article is not a hoax, nor is it original research (click the links). This may be a speedy keep. Allon Fambrizzi 06:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
• Weak keep; not very well sourced, but Straight Dope reference [1] is at least enough to prove that such a phenomenon exists/is believed to exist. Laïka 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, enough sources to appear plausible to me. hateless 07:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a noteworthy urban legend. I wonder what believers do if prescribed CPAP? Robert A.West (Talk) 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable urban legend, although source listed is a Korean website, which doesn't help, but no reason to delete. Wavy G 08:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fan death is scientifically rubbish, but that is no reason to delete the article, it is a notable myth. Martin 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. le petit vagabond 10:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A well-sourced, very well-known urban legend and a notable group hysteria phenomenon. --Charlene 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable urban legend, apparently. Could use more sources, though. Sandstein 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It isn't original research when there are sources; it's as simple as that. Lovely urban legend, though; made me laugh! Fans chop up oxugen molecules... Elrith 13:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well cited article on notable theory prevelant in Korea.--Prosfilaes 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep Sadly the links in the article point to a lot of coverage. This desperately needs cleaned up thought. The beliefs section is completely unverified and the formatting of the existing references should be made consistent. South Korea's science teachers really need to be taking a long hard look at themselves though. "Windmills do not work that way!"-- IslaySolomon | talk 13:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Still has too much OR. Not sure about those sources, either. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 14:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Patent nonsense. Lacks multiple independent and reliable sources to even show that it is widely believed, and does not make clear the judgement of doctors and scientists that a fan cannot somehow disintegrate the oxygen in a room. Edison 16:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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.