Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Herpin


 * 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The result was '''withdrawn by proposer, verifiability problems solved. Thanks and respect to all involved.''' --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Al Herpin
This article has been around for nearly a year without any significant improvement. It's an orphan and until I stuck a proposed deletion tag on it had no references. The references it has now appear to be a website that offers up this story as a means of inspiring simpletons with blind faith, and another site that deals in tales of levitation, witchcraft, fortune telling and the like. Nothing reliable there. If a single reliable source cannot be found for this, we're better off without it. --Tony Sidaway 11:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have found a potential source, here. This page mentions up Al Herpin, and cites "Kevin McFarland, Incredible But True, Bell Publishing Company, New York, 1978." I'm going to see if I can dig up Incredible But True from the library today, though if someone beats me to it, I would be grateful. Charlie 11:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep - While admitting I might be falling victim to WP:THISISREALLYINTERESTING (joke), if this can be properly (read reliably) sourced then it really should be kept. If it's a hoax or urban legend then it should obviously go.  /Blaxthos 16:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. No reliable sources and suspicious lack of details. No description of any investigation of his claim, just that unnamed doctors didn't find a bed. Smells like a WP:HOAX. Won't lose any sleep if this is deleted. Reluctant keep. I still believe this to be a hoax, but it appears to be a notable one. Clarityfiend 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unverified basically -Docg 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails verifiability. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Far from being a hoax, this case got a fair amount of attention back in the day (i.e. before wikipedia and the internet). If anyone has access to the NY Times archives, the article can be immediately sourced from these articles . --JJay 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It has sat for a year without references. If someone comes up with one, fair enough, they can recreate it - or ask for undeletion, and i'll do it personally. But saying it could be sourced in theory isn't good enough, it hasn't been, for a year.--Docg
 * So what are you saying? That we should delete an article on a notable sleep disorder case because no one, including yourself, bothered to look for references. --JJay 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We've too many articles handing about because someone could in theory, but probably won't in practice, fix it. I'm saying sofixit--Docg 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per JJay. NY Times is definitely a reliable source.  In the interest of full disclosure I'm the one who removed the PROD, which I did because a google search showed potential sources.  As a general comment I think that when PRODding an article the PRODder should try an find sources instead of proposing it for deletion.  Black Harry  20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, source it from the NYT, please.--Docg 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think jjay and co have done excellent work in finding possible references in NYT, but I'd like to ask: have they sourced this or are they simply parroting sources from a secondary work? I mean, have you actually read those New York Times articles in paper, microfilm or electronic archive? If you have, I salute you and there's no problem keeping this.  If the not, well it's borderline because there seem to be no reliable references online.   I think there are problems with the tone (it represents anecdote as fact) but that's an editing issue and can be resolved by recasting. --Tony Sidaway
 * Keep--sources are present, I think its even possible that it's actually  intrinsically notable.  DGG 00:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But, in my opinion, an article   of this type without sources cannot reasonably be assumed to be sourceable.  DGG 00:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As opposed to simply arguing about it, it took exactly two minutes to find the 2 New York Times stories in question and quote their lead paragraphs in full in the text. The full stories are behind the Times Select subscriber wall but as he's now the subject of 2 independent, verifiable sources it's a keep. Nick mallory 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Thank you. I withdraw my proposal for deletion and express my thanks to my fellow Wikipedians for the research. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 3 June 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.