Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Curse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. W.marsh 14:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kennedy Curse

Kennedy Curse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is about as unencyclopedic an article as we have. It's totally unsourced, speculative noise that belongs in Parade magazine or something, but not in Wikipedia. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete: I think everybody a lot of people has have heard of this. But I do have to agree with the nom, and say it does not belong on Wikipedia. It is unsourced, and this collection of information seems a bit original research'y. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a better article on the misfortunes of the Kennedy family that it can be redirected to. I know that sources can be found, most of them are probably already here on Wikipedia. There's a book and criticism on the topic within easy googling. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Restricting ourselves just to the title as such we have a book published by a reputable imprint, a Skeptic's Dictionary refutation, and quite a bit of ongoing media discussion as well as other wordings. These are sources which consider the number of tragic events itself, the totality, to be notable as opposed to one or two loosely-connected tragedies that have been connected by synthesis. I tagged for sources a month ago, but this is the type of article that has interest whenever something new happens, which it hasn't lately. The part that bothers me the most is some wording which either treats the "curse" as a real supernatural thing or as something we have to debunk, and that ends up being problematic without sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in its present form. The topic may be notable but there is little here which would provide the basis for a valid article. An article in this form, which attracts attention only when there is another event (and likely then only because someone rushes to add mention of that event here, even if far afield), is not worth keeping. Kablammo (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not unencylopedic. Whether one agrees that there is a "Kennedy Curse", it's been a part of American folklore since 1963, and revisited in 1968, 1969, 1973, 1984, 1999... and it's not just in "Parade magazine". Like the zero year curse, the Hope Diamond curse, the conspiracy to wipe out all witnesses to the JFK conspiracy, or UFOs or ghosts or angels for that matter, the widespread existence of a belief is notable. There are some sources already in the article, and plenty of others could be added. Mandsford (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dhartung and Mandsford. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. It is discussed in books and part of folklore which means it is noteworthy enough for an entry. - Mgm|(talk) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It does not matter if a nominator thinks it sounds like it belongs in Parade magazine, or whether it is really a "curse." . It has been widely written about for over 40 years, and thus satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Just because you wish this topic not to exist doesn't mean it does not exist. SesameRoad (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Wish it not to exist?" I'd be happy if this article (and all articles) was well-sourced, verifiable, and either factual or a well-sourced belief. One might be able to put in such sources, though the article has been sitting in pretty much the same state for a long time. When this AfD fails, I'll be removing all unsourced material from the article, which will essenially stub it. This includes all unsourced statements that XXX is or is not part of the "curse"; the call for references has been there for almost nine months now...Odd date to be involved in this discussion... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 22 November 2007 (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.