Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Paul is Dead" clues from Abbey Road

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 merge articles delete obsolete category. I am redirecting the articles for now, so the old versions are still there should people want to merge specific content. W.marsh 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also, "Paul is Dead" clues from The White Album, "Paul is Dead" clues from Let It Be, "Paul is Dead" clues from Magical Mystery Tour, "Paul is Dead" clues from Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Beatles albums with few "Paul is Dead" clues and finally Category:Paul is dead

A lot of speculation regarding the Paul is dead urban legend (which states that one of the Beatles died halfway through their career and was replaced by a look-alike). This article is unsourced and appears to be original research. Note that all of these articles are redundant to Paul is dead, the article actually describing the urban legend. >Radiant< 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any important information into Paul is dead. There is some really interesting material (albeit unsourced) in the article that could be salvaged and sourced. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Unabashed OR speculation from start to finish. If an article can't make it through three sentences without using phrases like "it could be interpreted as" or "it might represent" then it's a good indicator that the article probably ought not to be on Wikipedia. Otto4711 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, one of series of "Paul is Dead" clues articles. Although in the same class as Ufology and 9/11 conspiracy theories, the rumors surrounding this band can become notable if it gets big enough. —Tokek 13:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a reason to have seven articles on the topic, six of which rife with speculation and original research? >Radiant< 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, chock full of original research. Axem Titanium 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge to Paul is dead any "clues" which have been sourced to coverage in publications satisfying WP:A. The clues do not have to be valid to be notable. These claims are not original research, since at the time of the "Paul is dead" urban legend there were numerous articles about the "clues" written up in mainstream press. Thus references exist and could be added. This is a bit pre-internet, so it might require hitting the physical library and using Readers Guide to Periodical Literature to find old magazines in the stacks with the relevant articles. The hoax was widely discussed back then, and many of these "clues" were written about. I consider it all a publicity stunt by the musical group or their promoters. Edison 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once more, is this a reason to have seven articles on the topic? We're not suggesting deleting all of them, just six of the lists, keeping the main article. I have serious doubts about sourcing all of that, and one might argue they are rather trivial in any case. >Radiant< 15:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the non-triviality of the "Paul is dead" hoax is shown by the widespread press coverage over decades. See for instance Edward Rothstein, "Review/Music; McCartney's 'Liverpool Oratorio'" New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Nov 20, 1991. pg. C.20, which said that the "Paul is dead" rumor was: "the hottest rumor in the politically charged youth culture" twenty years earlier, and which lists the "clues" including Paul walking barefoot on the "Abbey Road: cover with a "coffin nail" (cigarette) in his hand, the flower covered grave on the "Sergeant Pepper" cover, and the "deadman" utterance heard when Revolution numer 9 is played backward. Proquest provides 8 such references to the hoax from the NY Times, Variety, USA Today, and other reliable publications from 1991 to the present. I do not presently have access to older publications, but I read press coverage of it back in the day. Edison 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No one is suggesting deleting Paul is dead. Whether or not "Paul is dead" is notable is irrelevant to this nomination. Otto4711 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong merge all to Paul is dead. This is fancruft and belongs on a music or even Beatles wiki. It is not of general interest. The legend is notable, but it does not require or deserve more than a single encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge- agree that these rumours/incidents are notable- but better served in one article Thunderwing 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all properly-sourced items to Paul is dead that aren't already there. The underlying topic is notable as Edison pointed out, but these separate articles are redundant and give disproportionate coverage to what is basically trivia, celebrity gossip. Barno 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; none of this speculation is sourced, so none of it is worth merging. This article consists of pure original research. *** Crotalus *** 22:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all, these seems pretty clear.--Xiaphias 01:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and merge what is sourced to Paul is dead. If you're going to engage in what amounts to total speculation, then it had better be well-known speculation, and it had better be sourced. --Haemo 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and merged sourced material to Paul is dead. --Samuel Wantman 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Is there a single word or phrase here that is not original research? If there's ever a time when these hundreds of dubious claims can be confirmed by reliable sources, then maybe we can have six separate articles about one urban legend. Until then, one will do. szyslak 09:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: None of these claims can be "confirmed" by reliable sources. The fact that people speculated these claims in print can, in most cases, be verified by reliable sources. I'm not aware of any of these actually being original research. Barno 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Paul is dead. If this exhaustive Beatles website can get it all onto one page, surely we can.--Mike Selinker 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything verifiable to Paul is dead. Seems like a lot of original research right now, but I'm sure some of these claims can be attributed to outside sources. daveh4h 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• change to Delete Nothing seems to be verifiable. daveh4h 18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, so much text without a single reference hurts my eyes. -- ReyBrujo 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, so much interesting information, true or not. But in one page it would be nice. Not six. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biglegoman (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge, it's being referenced by C|NET. --TIB (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, What a wonderful resource of original research and info from the internet and a book I bought at Barns & Nobel book store.

• Merge anything verifiable merge to Paul is dead and delete the rest. Russeasby 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't make a clear vote on this one. I would like to see enough content on this topic to fill this many articles (I do not support cramming things into one article just for the sake of it; providing information is far more important than saving space), but the articles are completely devoid of referencing, and this is the kind of topic where I can reasonably think that a great deal of this information may be OR. So I am in favor of merging anything verifiable and, if doing so results in a particularly long main article, then split the stuff back out into subarticles, but only with references. Everyking 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! I amazed there is a actually a discussion on this!GmanIV 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment on Verify whats there to verify, get out the damn album and see for yourself.....DUH. GmanIV 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Paul is dead. AniMate 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into paul is dead. This is an important part of British music history. --Lukebishop 19:21, 14 May 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.