Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabelle (doll)


 * 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   no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Annabelle (doll)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete and redirect to Annabelle (film). Topic has no notability outside of the film of the same name. No in-depth and serious coverage by any WP:RS and WP:FRIND source. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect Some slight notability, but nothing warranting a standalone article.-- Auric    talk  17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. An alternative possibility is to redirect to haunted doll.  But it seems rather unlikely that article would survive an AfD.  Walled garden?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Annabelle (film) - Seeing as there's not much evidence of notability seems better to M&R as opposed to deleting. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, We use reliable sources to establish notability there are at least four reliable sources which give the doll significant coverage International Business Times, iHorror, AOL, and Travel Channel which deciates a segment to the doll. The doll has influenced two major motion picture blockbusters. Valoem   talk   contrib  00:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first source is rather credulous, saying that the doll could move on its own and could write messages, etc. That does not seem like a reliable WP:FRIND source.  The second one is about a different doll.  The third seems like the best one, but even that falls short of what normally one would consider a reliable source for an encyclopedia article.  (For example, the claim that a priest lives on site to bless the doll daily seems like marketing rather than real journalism.)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions are against policy established by Wikipedia. We document events and beliefs objectively, not subjectively. The first source is secondary and reliable even if you personally disbelieve its contents. The second source only mentions the doll in one sentence so coverage is trivial, the third is reliable same as the first, and then there is the travel channel source which you have completely ignored. I am seeing significant coverage from at least three independent reliable sources. This doll inspired two major motion pictures grossing over half a billion rather counter intuitive to suggest the doll is not notable. Wikipedia is not a vote, I've addressed the issues regarding rationals for this AfD. Valoem   talk   contrib  13:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That a doll can "move on its own", can "write messages" and is "responsible For deaths" are WP:REDFLAG claims and requires high quality sourcing rather than sensational coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The term claimed means story based not fact based. The article is documents a notable urban legend not a fringe theory. Valoem   talk   contrib  15:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe your addition of the term "urban legend" to the article was a well intentioned effort, however we require at least one reliable source specifically referring to it as an urban legend. The sources presently being cited don't do that, they merely hype the horror aspect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Your assumptions are against policy established by Wikipedia". Well, the policy I quoted was WP:FRINGE.  You don't seem to have quoted any Wikipedia policy, and indeed have a somewhat fanciful idea of what policies actually entail.  The sources you gave don't really pass WP:RS.  The third source is not a credible piece of journalism.  Rather it seems to be a human interest puff piece (see WP:NEWSORG for a description of what "news" is).  I am unable to view the Travel Channel thing because the website is riddled with malware.  Reliable sources are things like academic papers, news reports by news outlets with a reputation for fact checking (here by "news report", we mean a story in which eyewitnesses and credentialed experts are interviewed), books published by reliable publishing houses, and so forth.  Generally speaking, random garbage you find on the internet is not reliable.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. Arbitrarily tossing out WP:FRINGE is not conducive nor neutral in any way. Fringe does not apply in this case, this is not a fringe topic as much as popular culture urban legend similar to the falsified Jenkem craze or the Boogeyman. Suggesting that International Business Times, AOL, and the Travel Channel is not reliable, mainstream, or fact checked is absurd. What is documented here is a notable urban legend not a fringe theory and I have corrected the article to reflect so. Valoem   talk   contrib  14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are these sources reliable? Find it in policy, then we can talk. But so far you're just contradicting policy-based reasons given for rejecting those sources as unreliable.  Not exactly compelling.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IBT, AOL, and Travel Channel articles are subject to peer review same as New York Times, LA Times, and other major publications. These are major mainstream secondary sources (not in weird news section) your claims that they are unreliable are complete unfounded. Any personal dislike for the subject is not justified here. Valoem   talk   contrib  15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about personal like or dislike. The sources you have suggested treat the story of the doll as factual, or simply repeat claims of Ed and Lorraine Warren uncritically. If we have to cite credulous coverage and put "allegedly" in front of every sentence, it's clear that an objective article can't be written. Are there any reliable sources that specifically identify the doll as a notable "urban legend"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting any myth which has not been studied by skeptics can not be notable? Valoem   talk   contrib  11:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources that call the doll a "myth"? A legend? A folklore? A widely held but false belief or idea? If so, they should be included in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reply makes it clear that you haven't read the WP:NEWSORG guideline. While news reporting from such outlets is generally reliable, not every bit of content published even by the New York Times is a reliable source for factual content in an encyclopedia.  There is a huge gap between news reporting conducted by these sources and fluff human interest stories.  I do not understand your apparent unwillingness to understand that there is a difference.  You cannot seriously believe that the IBT source stating as fact that the doll moved on its own and murdered people is as reliable as news reporting by the New York Times.  And the closing administrator will also not lend much credence to such blatantly ridiculous comparisons.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The main focus of this AfD is notability, we are setting a dangerous precedence by suggesting certain topics such as this can never be notable due to inherent disbelief. Sources such as OpEDNews or Perez Hilton may cause issues when establishing notability, but these are not the sources cited in this article. Of course there is a notable difference between news reporting and fluff human interest stories, by suggesting that the ladder can not be notable is contradictory to the foundation of this encyclopedia. We are looking at significant coverage from sources such as IBT and AOL which are subject to peer review and editorial oversight, thus reliable per WP:NEWSORG. The difference between and murder and an alleged doll moving on its own is obvious, but to suggest this article is not notable due its subject contradicts established policy. It is perfectly acceptable to use biased sources as long as the article we write is neutral. And for the record no I do not believe the doll moved on its own, but this people interviewed certainly did. Valoem   talk   contrib  12:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one but you suggested anything to do with "distaste", and here is the "dangerous precedent" you seek. Where in WP:NEWSORG does is say that any source that is "subject to peer review and editorial oversight, [is] reliable per WP:NEWSORG"?  The version of WP:NEWSORG that I am looking at doesn't actually discuss peer review.  Peer review is generally understood to do with scholarship in a subject.  I don't think you really mean to claim that the sources you have presented represent serious peer-reviewed scholarship, but if you are claiming that, then you are wrong (and probably shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia).


 * Secondly, WP:NEWSORG is also not about whether content is the subject of editorial oversight. Here is what NEWSORG actually says (I've quoted it at length, since your reference to both peer review and editorial oversight suggest that you haven't actually read it):


 * News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[6] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.


 * Simply put, while news agencies are generally reliable factual sources for news, they are not generally reliable for other things. The articles you have cited fall firmly into the other things category.  In fact, it's rather easy to see this by a simple reductio ad absurdum.  If we were to write an article based on your belief that the IBT piece is a reliable source for factual content (as you continue to maintain), then we must present, as a fact, that the doll moved on its own, etc.  We cannot in Wikipedia's voice, call into question these facts that an ostensibly reliable source presents.  You cannot have it both ways.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment only emphasize the exact situation presented. Major news publications are suddenly deemed unreliable due to the subject in question. Suggesting that IBT and AOL as unreliable due to lack of scholarly review does not show lack of notability. Its has been long standing that WP:RS and WP:GNG accepts mainstream news outlets as reliable. IBT and AOL is near the same quality as NYT or LAT. There are tons of other sources which I have yet to post including two published books because the current sources alone is enough to establish notability of Annabelle. We look for subjects that generate lasting impact and/or received significant coverage, do we not? A bit of discretion is required, this doll has been the subject of not one, but two mainstream major motion picture blockbusters, generating over $550 million in gross revenue, with the sources established within the article it is sufficient to say this doll has a lasting impact. Valoem   talk   contrib  20:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There seems to be a bit of notability about this. It was featured in a prominent book The Demonologist: The Extraordinary Career of Ed and Lorraine Warren. I would oppose merging it into into the movie article, since it has somewhat of a separate history from the film.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I've just added three more sources just to put the icing on top. Valoem   talk   contrib  03:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep No policy reason to delete it. I'd say it might be worth merging but since there's multiple potential merge targets it's probably best off staying as an article. Artw (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have now an abundance of credulous sources (mostly so-called "entertainment news" that actually concern the film) and a total absence of sceptical fact-based ones.  So it does not seem to be possible to have an article that conforms to WP:NPOV.  The cited sources also have WP:V/WP:RS issues.  For example, the main source, cited a total of nine times, is the International Business Times piece, which states factually that the doll could move on its own, that it wrote messages, and that it attacked people.  The Glamour article repeats the same set of claims.  Although editors expressing an interest in keeping the article are apparently willing to blur the line between "factual" sources and... whatever it is the article is currently citing, this is not reliable sourcing for an encyclopedia.  Entertainment/tabloid news, for an article of this kind, is not considered to be reliable sourcing per WP:NEWSORG and WP:SENSATION.  I referred above to a "reductio ad absurdum" if we were to write the article based on assuming that these sources are factual.  Well it now seems that the absurdum has been reductio'ed.  We have an article that claims, as fact, that a doll attacked and killed people, that it levitated, etc.  I also referred above to WP:FRINGE.  Sources in entertainment news are not the kind of sources that would apply to WP:NFRINGE, which demands serious coverage by reliable sources.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We really don't do we now? We have an article that claims Ed and Lorraine Warren alleges this doll killed people. WP:NEWSORG does not apply as the source quality is high, WP:SENSATION also does not apply because this is not yellow page or tabloid sources. What we have is an editor blatantly showing bias in the form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and then finding every possible excuse to removed an article which clearly passes WWP:GNG. Valoem   talk   contrib  13:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is becoming tiresome. You don't get to pick and choose which policies apply and which do not.  Those are decided by community consensus, not the imperious whims of an editor who (apparently) hasn't even read the guidelines he cites.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT, for example, says "Content on Wikipedia is judged based on its compliance with guidelines, not its physical appearance."  I have quoted a number of guidelines, and cited a number of policies, arguing that those do apply.  You may disagree with my reasons, but you need to articulate clearly why you disagree with them.  They cannot just be written off en masse as falling under IDONTLIKEIT, because that is not the right guideline.  Whether one of us "likes" the article or not should be irrelevant for the substance of the discussion.  Inclusion is based on the strength of the arguments for and against, not whether someone "likes" the content.  And in a deletion debate, you need to address the substance of the arguments, which you seem totally unable to do.
 * For example, you seem to believe that WP:GNG creates an ironclad guarantee of inclusion. It does not.  For one thing, that guideline requires reliable sourcing which, I have argued, is not the case for the subject in question.  The guideline further states: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included."  In this case, my deletion vote argues that the lack of balancing factual sources renders impossible a standalone article compliant with the WP:NPOV policy.  This is elaborated upon at WP:NFRINGE.
 * Finally, to respond to the claim that "WP:SENSATION... does not apply". The Glamour article contains the following paragraph:
 * "Here are the real-life details, according to the New Haven Register and the Warrens' own website (visit at your own risk). Annabelle is a vintage Raggedy Ann doll purchased in 1970 by a mother for her daughter Donna's 28th birthday. The doll began to move around Donna's apartment and leave messages for her on parchment, which Donna did not own. Donna first contacted a medium about the doll, who told her it was inhabited by the spirit of a seven-year-old girl named Annabelle Higgins. After the doll tried to strangle and attack Donna's friend Lou, she turned to the Warrens for help. The Warrens informed Donna that Annabelle was actually inhabited by an inhuman, demon spirit. They then held an exorcism for the doll and removed it from her home. The exorcism did not take, though, and the Warrens' power steering and brakes failed during their drive home with the doll in the car. The Warrens' had a special case built for the doll in their Occult Museum, since it escaped several locks in its first few weeks at their house. Of all the items in the museum, Spera claims that the doll is what he is most frightened of. Visitors to the museum who taunted the doll were all involved in near-fatal or fatal accidents upon leaving the Warrens."


 * I don't think that any reasonable editor can believe that sources like this pass any kind of standard of reliability for use in an encyclopedia, and no amount of wikilawyering over the exact meaning of "tabloid" at WP:SENSATION will ever transmute paragraphs like this into reliable encyclopedic references.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The opening line of WP:SENSATION states "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting" these sources include National Enquirer, Globe, or The Sun and others. The sources we have provided include published books, Yahoo News, IBT, USA Today, AOL News, and Travel Channel, which are sources generally considered reliable. All these sources state the same thing which in itself, is a sign of notability. The second argument you have used is NFRINGE which states "For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it appears this has and passes NFRINGE. It hard to appear neutral when you have selected one or two sources you do not like and use only those to discredit the article as a whole. You need to go through at least 11 of the 13 sources and prove each source is unreliable by comparing it to other articles whose sources you deem reliable. Valoem   talk   contrib  17:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. All of the sources are sensationalistic.  WP:SENSATION is not limited to tabloid media.  Since most of the article is based in the International Business Times reference, I focused on that one.  The Glamour article has similar claims, as does the Yahoo News article, etc.  (The USA Today piece is about the film.  And I'm not willing to grant that The Travel Channel is "generally a reliable source", unless you can point to a black-letter policy note to that effect.  If you want to identify one source as unquestionably reliable, then we can talk about that one instead.)


 * Perhaps you could answer flat out the following question, instead of continuing to advance these non-arguments. The IBT article presence "9 Freaky Facts".  Among these facts are statements like: "It Could Move On Its Own", "...And Write Messages", and "While searching the home for a possible break in, he felt a presence behind him and was soon after cut and left with '7 distinct claw marks' on his chest. The scratches, despite causing him to double over in pain, healed almost immediately."  My question to you: since you seem to hold the journalistic standards of the International Business Times as beyond reproach, are these reliable statements of fact?  Have they been held to similar standards of fact-checking as, say, this article in the New York Times concerning the Netanyahu West Bank settlements?  (You earlier invited a comparison to the news portion of the New York Times).  If so, then I think that answer speaks for itself.  If not, how do you assess the reliability of such sources in the light of the demands of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and most specifically how do you justify the use of substandard sources in light of the WP:REDFLAG claims that appear there?  Please refer to actual, black-letter, policy.  Thanks,  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment See Articles for deletion/Boyd Bushman, where it was unsuccessfully argued that an article should exist because the topic got a lot of press. Although sensational claims about the subject were carried by large number of news and media outlets, many of them normally considered "reliable", those claims had not generated the required sustained and in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Per Notability, "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Annabelle (film) to delete. I was going to nominate this article for deletion months ago, but I figured that it would be like tilting at windmills.  Yes, it has citations, and some of them go to questionably reliable sources, but this is way too fringe.  From my understanding, "News of the Weird"-style press is never considered reliable or enough to establish notability by itself.  My first choice is actually deletion, but I'll quite happily settle for redirection if it helps to reach consensus; in fact, I suspect that most people (who oppose keeping it, that is) will probably prefer a merge or redirection over deletion.  These kinds of creepy urban legends would be better documented on a Wikia wiki than here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would we redirect with the existence of reliable sources. Kept in mind this doll was the basis for two major motion pictures and is not a BLP. I've made a userification request for Boyd Bushman to compare the sources. We can not deny the reliability of these major publications. Valoem   talk   contrib  10:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Annabelle does not compare to Boyd Bushman. Bushman's impact was generate by news and falls under WP:ONEEVENT. This doll has received significantly more coverage. The doll was the basis for two major motion pictures generating $550 million in gross revenue with a sequel to come. The sources are not from the silly season of news, but of mainstream coverage due to the lasting impact generated. This story is comparable more to that of Keyser Soze and has received the same coverage. Valoem   talk   contrib  12:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEEVENT (or more accurately, Notability) also applies to Annabelle. The majority of the press and media have occurred around some key dates: October 2014 (the film's theatrical release date), January 2015 (the film's DVD release date) and March 2015 (the film's streaming availability date). What you are seeing is publicity and promotion at work, not lasting impact. Sorry. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * NB: I was asked to participate in this discussion via a note on my talk page, so the closer will need to decide how what I have to say interacts with WP:CANVASS. Valoem has invited me (and, as far as I can tell, only me) to offer a view on this debate; I don't really know Valoem and I don't understand his reasons for picking me out of the crowd, but OK, here I am. I would recommend a keep outcome here.  The glamour source and the yahoo source are very clearly about the doll.  They aren't about the film.  This isn't a subtle or fine distinction: it's quite blatant and obvious.  The doll is, without doubt, notable.  As editor colleagues above have rightly pointed out, some of the claims the sources make about this doll are utterly preposterous.  That does not mean we should delete the article, though.  Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, has an educational purpose.  I mean, we're not snopes, but when it comes to notable false/hoax content, it's right that we cover it.  That's why we have articles about bigfoot or the moon landing conspiracy theories, for example.— S Marshall  T/C 13:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no comparison with fringe theories like bigfoot and moon landing conspiracies that have been subject to extensive critical analysis. The problem is not that there are a few sources that make outlandish claims.  The problem is that all of the sources appear to make such claims.  So we cannot have an article that simultaneously meets WP:V (that is, including relevant "facts" from the sources), WP:NPOV (I'm not even sure home that would look - inserting "allegedly" before every reputed "fact" sourced to some sensationalist puff-piece) and WP:NOR (in order to satisfy NPOV, we would need to undermine the factual claims given in the only sources we have).  As I pointed out above, WP:NFRINGE gives some further context. That notability criterion is almost tailor-made for precisely such a quandry.  And this doll clearly does not meet that notability criterion.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  That's correct, notable false/hoax content is rightly covered in standalone articles. Bigfoot and Moon landing conspiracy theories are notable because much perspective by scientists and experts opposing the fringe claims has been published. Not so with the Annabelle doll. Credulous stories designed to hype the subject of a horror movie at key release dates is really all we have at this point. It's not enough for an objective stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, look, this allegation that it's not notable is wrong, and it's a symptom of a serious and growing problem that we have with the encyclopaedia. Our notability rule is very old and very simple. If it has significant (more than a couple of paragraphs) coverage in reliable sources (note plural) then it's notable.  If it doesn't then it isn't.  This rule is simple and simplistic and it leads to simple and simplistic outcomes, and I understand why some editors want something more subtle and nuanced  but there are really good reasons why it has to be simple.  You see, there wouldn't be much point going through the effort of researching and writing an article if people could come along and randomly delete it, would there?  So we have to have simple, clear rules that are consistently enforced.  That's what enables people to write content without going through a committee process first.  This is why it's so important to stick rigidly to the WP:GNG even when it gives outcomes that might seem anomalous, such as in this case.  It will certainly take careful thought and good editorial judgment to keep the article on the right side of WP:FRINGE.  But it's a much more serious mistake to delete an article on a notable topic, or to try to re-define notability so it means something other than significant coverage in reliable sources.  It's not permitted for Wikipedia editors to include material because they think it's true.  Verifiability, not truth.  The counterpart to that is that it's not permitted for Wikipedia editors to exclude material because they think it's false.  Although I'm confident that this material is false, it's right that we cover it.  However, I see it as important that we don't ever report it in Wikipedia's voice  the article will need lots of "according to (source)"-type hedging phrases.— S Marshall  T/C 16:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In reviewing the comments at this AfD, I don't see that editors who oppose a standalone article are doing so because they don't understand policy or out of prejudice for the topic. They are saying the topic has not generated the quality of coverage that's required for a standalone article. In unanimously suggesting a redirect or merge to a suitable target article, they are saying the topic has just enough notability to be covered by an existing article, but falls short of the serious and in-depth coverage needed for a standalone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just astonished that anyone would actually believe that the sources being used are reliable for an encyclopedia article. This flies in the face of multiple guidelines, and it  disconnects fundamentally with the notion that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid in the style of the National Enquirer.  I think I have already given good reasons against GNG in this case.  That criterion indicates that coverage in reliable sources creates a presumption, not a guarantee.  We don't have reliable sources, and the NFRINGE guideline is clear.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, the amount of coverage needed for a standalone article is well-established and clearly defined in the GNG. This argument was fully played out and reached encyclopaedia-wide consensus after a huge argument in about 2006-7 and with all due respect, it's not for you to overrule it. Slawomir Bialy's argument doesn't seem to me to apply to the two sources I'm talking about this one and this one. Neither of them attribute any supernatural powers to the doll. These aren't fringe sources, they're published articles by named journalists working for recognised publications. The contention that their content is unreliable simply does not withstand investigation.— S Marshall T/C 19:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I quoted the Glamour article at length above. This article definitely does sensationalistically attribute supernatural powers to the doll.  The Yahoo News article is an interview with a psychic medium.  Your defense of these as reliable FRIND sources "simply does not withstand investigation".  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Yahoo news article is an interview with Lorraine Warren. She does describe herself as a medium and the Yahoo source reports this, but the reason why it's interviewing her is because she and her husband Ed did the original "investigation".  I use quotes because I don't doubt that this "investigation" was somewhat lacking in scientific rigour.  The Glamour article reports supernatural claims without endorsing them, hence the phrase "according to the New Haven Register and the Warrens' own website (visit at your own risk)".  It's clear to me that the journalist doesn't really believe these claims, but enjoys the creepy story being related.— S Marshall  T/C 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the Warrens have the museum, so no, not FRIND at all. The Glamour article describes the supernatural claims as "Real life facts".  It's good that you think that the journalist doesn't "really believe these claims".  Describing things as "facts", but not really believing them, and rather "enjoy[ing] the creepy story being related" is very nice for tabloids.  But these are not hallmarks of reliable sources.  (WP:TABLOID, WP:NEWSORG, WP:NFRINGE)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd invite you to read the guidelines you cite. To the extent that they're relevant, they support my position rather than yours. WP:TABLOID is about breaking stories, routine news on celebrities or sports, so it's not actually relevant in this case.  It certainly doesn't say "If the statement appears in a tabloid, delete the article."  WP:NEWSORG is more relevant.  It says "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact", which is the approach I've suggested above.  It certainly doesn't say "if the statement is not authoritative, delete the article".  WP:NFRINGE is also relevant.  It says "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia."  This is just reprinting the GNG, which is the approach I've advocated all along.  Basically, the authorities you're appealing to don't say what you want them to say.— S Marshall  T/C 01:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just a dishonest distortion, both of my arguments, and of policy itself, and it really needs to stop. Nowhere did I say that these guidelines said "If the statement appears in a tabloid, delete the article".  Rather, I said that WP:GNG requires reliable sources.  That policy helpfully includes a link to WP:RS.  So, let's follow that link to see if the sources cited are reliable.  Doing so, we find the most relevant information at WP:NEWSORG.  I quoted that guideline at length above, but the key part is "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."  So according to that, the sources we have here are not reliable, except as primary sources.  I did not link to WP:TABLOID.  I linked to WP:SENSATION, which elaborates on the point made a propos of NEWSORG, saying "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting."  Regarding my use of the English word "tabloid" in the argument, yes I certainly implied that the standards of verifiability are greater for Wikipedia than a tabloid, and I hope you agree with this, but I did not link to the policy as you have done.
 * Also, perhaps you yourself were inattentive in reading the same guidelines that you now suggest that I should read. The very WP:NFRINGE guideline that you quoted in brief, contains the following, at length:
 * "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season)."


 * The sources currently in the article are of the kind described in the last sentence, not "serious and reliable" sources.
 * I think the difference between our perspectives is best summarized in the question: "Do policy nuances matter?" You believe not, that if there are sources (irrespective of their quality), then GNG says the subject is notable enough for an article.  I believe that nuances do matter: in order to have an article, we need sources of a certain quality.  This is a fundamental difference in philosophy, and neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.  But let's not have any more dishonest strawman-style arguments, ok?  It's just unbecoming.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I rather take exception to being called "dishonest". Your position is that the article should be deleted, and as far as I can see the rules you cite don't support its deletion.— S Marshall  T/C 23:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I was not sure whether S Marshall would favor in Keep or Delete, but he is someone I've met in DRV whose judgment I trust. I've left purely neutral message on his talk page just avoid any possible controversy. Since the Bushman article was brought into this discussion I had it userfied to compare the sources.
 * The sources in the Annabelle article are vastly stronger. Bushman's article used NYDailyNews and Youtube VS. Yahoo News, USA Today, and IBT in this article. The only reliable sources are possibly mysanantonio and maybe http://www.tvqc.com/, but I am not sure even about those sources. To compare a doll which inspired two multi-million grossing blockbusters with solid sources to the Bushman's article is ridiculous. In fact the sources you mentioned (by large number of news and media outlets, many of them normally considered "reliable") are vastly stronger yet none of these were posted in the discussion so I am fine with Randykitty's close, though given these new sources a DRV maybe in contention. Also at the time Bushman's article was a BLP and thus not comparable. Valoem   talk   contrib  00:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In addition to the sources provided above, here is another source about the doll:  The article notes: She's got wheat-colored braids with red bows, round rosy cheeks and big eyes. She's child-sized and wears a long white dress. She could be a collectible, the centerpiece of a doll shelf. Instead, she is possessed and viewers are only really safe, well safe-ish, when she's enclosed in glass and blessed monthly by a Catholic priest. She is the doll at the center of this season's it-flick and the creation of a locally raised special-effects professional whose niche is creepy props. Tony Rosen, originally from Cloquet, designed and built the demonic vessel that tortures a young couple in "Annabelle." ... Annabelle was sculpted in clay, molded and cast in plastic. The mouth and eyes move in "The Conjuring," but not in "Annabelle" which was directed by John Leonetti, the cinematographer from "The Conjuring."   There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Annabelle to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC) </ul>
 * That is a story about the prop used in the movie. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction. I withdraw that source, though it could be useful in the film's article. I think this article from Glamour and this article from Yahoo! Movies provide the "significant coverage in reliable sources" required by Notability. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first states as a fact that the doll attacked someone, that it could move and write messages. The second one is an interview with a psychic medium who owns a museum containing the doll.  I find it rather curious that someone would claim that either of these is a reliable source.  What, exactly, does "reliable source" mean?  Is anything one finds on the web a "reliable source"?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first source does not state as fact that the doll attacked someone. Instead, it prefaces that with: "Here are the real-life details, according to the New Haven Register and the Warrens' own website (visit at your own risk)." It is describing what the the Warrens say happened "in real life". The doll is given nearly three pages of coverage in this book:<ol><li></li></ol> Here are other sources:<ol><li> The article notes: "The real Annabelle doll lives in a locked box at Warren's Occult Museum at her Monroe home. The doll in the movie is a frightening looking porcelain doll in a child's image, with long hair and the real Annabelle — the one in Warren's museum — is a plain-looking classic Raggedy Ann doll with red yarn for hair. But the Raggedy Ann at the Warren's Museum is no ordinary doll. According to the Warrens, it is inhabited by an 'inhuman spirit,' and there is a warning on the glass case not to touch. One museum-goer who ignored the warnings and taunted the doll, died in a motorcycle crash shortly after being told to leave the museum."</li><li> The article notes: "Yes, the doll is real and the story for the prequel to the 2013 movie ‘The Conjuring’ is far more frightening than the film portrays. After Child’s Play’s Chucky doll based on the real-life Robert the Doll and his reputation of being possessed by spirits, comes another account of terrifying toys and occult occurrences in 2014’s Annabelle. Paranormal investigators Lorraine Warren and her late husband Ed were called in after a birthday gift turned into a demonic enemy, inspiring James Wan’s blockbuster and the latest instalment directed by John R. Leonetti. ... More paranormal activity occurred when the doll seemed bring gifts to the female students, and in one frightening event even appeared to be covered in blood. That was when Donna and Angie decided to call on the help of a medium, who revealed to them that the spirit of a  seven-year-old girl called Annabelle Higgins, whose body was discovered in the field where the apartment complex had been constructed. Feeling compassion for the lost soul of the child, the flatmates allowed the doll and spirit to stay in the home, as ‘all Annabelle wanted was to be loved’." The publication has editorial oversight according to http://www.neonnettle.com/contact.</li><li> The article notes: "The real Annabelle — actually a Raggedy Ann doll — was bought in 1970 and supposedly terrorized a family, who later called in the Warrens for help. (They’ve chosen to remain anonymous all these years.) They claimed that the toy moved around the house when they weren’t there and left notes such as “Help Us” — and that she once allegedly attacked a family friend. The original doll, which has since been exorcised, can now be seen on display at the Warrens’ Occult Museum in Monroe, Conn."</li></ol> Cunard (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The title of the IBT article is "9 freaky facts". The article states that these are real life details.  From our WP:NEWSORG guideline: '"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).'  Do you disagree that this source is a reliable source for the statements of fact that the doll moved on its own, wrote messages, and attacked someone?  If, instead, you believe that this sources is only reliable as primary sources for the opinions of the Warrens, then it is not WP:FRIND.  So, either way, the demand for independent reliable sources is clearly not met there.
 * The book you cited also says, as a fact, that the doll left messages around the apartment. That Lou was given seven scratches that healed immediately.  Is this a reliable source for factual content in an encyclopedia article?
 * The New Haven Register contains the following statements of fact:
 * " She put the rag doll on her bed and began to notice it changing positions. A leg would be crossed, or the doll would be lying on its side. Then the girl and her roommate began to find parchment paper on the floor with written messages, such as, “Help me, help us.” They had no parchment paper in the house. The doll began appearing in different rooms and at one point appeared to be leaking blood. Then, one day, a male friend was taking a nap and woke up with the doll staring at him, as he felt like he was being strangled. There were deep scratch wounds on his upper body."
 * Do you believe that this is a reliable source for statements of fact, and that an encyclopedia article should be based on the facts presented in such a source?
 * You seem to think that the Neon Nettle source is a particularly reliable source for factual content on an encyclopedia, because you indicate that there is a link to editorial oversight. If so, do you then agree that the facts as presented in that article?  "[T]he doll even started to change rooms", "suspicious notes etched on strips parchment began appearing around the apartment, written in the handwriting of a small child", "More paranormal activity occurred when the doll seemed bring gifts to the female students, and in one frightening event even appeared to be covered in blood", "The next day, looking around the bedroom for signs of forced entry, Lou was attacked again after feeling an eerie presence behind him".  Should Wikipedia articles be based on such factual statements?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the film (maybe selectively merge; otherwise delete) - although I am convinced that this passes GNG, just as other bollocks like 2012_phenomenon although maybe by a smaller margin, the lack of any critical source whatsoever (unlike for the 2012 thing) makes it impossible to write a serious article without doing original research (and yes, claiming that "dolls don't move, idiot" inside the article would be original research). It is very clear that putting everything in conditional form (WP:ALLEGED) does not change that.
 * Rather than wikilawyering about the precise meaning of GNG, I would invoke WP:IAR which states that there are no rules, only guidelines, to avoid getting stuck in esoteric wikilawyering discussions when the issue at hand is clear to any child that has not learnt the guidelines. Here, it is very clear that since:
 * All sources are biased toward the paranormal POV (whether they really believe it or write it for bait-and-click is irrelevant)
 * WP:OR should be followed here;
 * Saying something that the sources do not say is WP:OR;

... it necessarily follows that the article is going to be POV until and unless a critical source is found. Tigraan (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, your saying that the doll has enough reliable sources and coverage to pass WP:GNG, but we should ignore all rules and have this redirected? Valoem   talk   contrib  19:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a bit misleading to put it this way. I do not think the sources are "reliable" in the usual sense of the word, and that's the core of my argument; but I do think they establish notability.
 * The main debate in the previous comments seems to be disagreement over whether GNG is a sufficient or necessary condition for inclusion. My argument is: who cares? Ignore the letter of WP:GNG (which is, yes, IAR), because the spirit of WP:NPOV is a more important thing to follow. (I am not saying GNG is less important that NPOV; I am saying the letter of GNG is less important than the spirit of NPOV). Tigraan (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very much opposed to using IAR to remove notable content. The point of the general notability guideline  the reason why it's worked so well for us  is that anyone can determine for themselves whether there's more than one reliable source.  They don't have to get into discussions with other people about whether it's appropriate for them to write a particular article, they can just go ahead and do it.  That only works if they can have confidence in the GNG.  If we start using IAR to get rid of articles that do pass the GNG, then content writers will lose that confidence and the content creation process will slow down accordingly.  This business of deleting content that passes the GNG has been happening more and more in recent years and I think it's connected to the dropoff in rates of content creation and the dropoff in numbers of active editors, so I'm determined to resist it.— S Marshall  T/C 15:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the context of a deletion discussion what distinguishes IAR from IDONTLIKEIT? Artw (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For reasons that should be obvious to anyone discussing on good faith, who has read this deletions rationale and WP:IAR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These are light years apart.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something. You're ignoring all the rules to get rid of an article you don't like bit it's not IDONTLIKEIT because...? Artw (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "You're ignoring all the rules to get rid of an article you don't like bit it's not IDONTLIKEIT because..." The reasons articulated in the original rationale are that an article conforming to our pillars is not possible because of the lack of reliable, verifiable sources.  I might be missing the part of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that says that we can dismiss any argument just because we disagree with it, but that seems to be how that guideline is being used in this deletion discussion.  If you want to respond substantively to the comments raised, please do so.  But pointing out that GNG is not some sort of magical armor that can be conjured forth by the unthinking mobs with the incantation "GNG, teh sources derp" is very different from "ignoring all the rules to get rid of an article you don't like".  Content that cannot conform to our pillars should not be on Wikipedia.  One would hope this would be something that we all should be able to agree to, but apparently not.  In fact, weirdly anyone in this discussion even mentioning the WP:PILLARS is immediately labelled a heretic.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which pillar are you attempting to support here? Artw (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there's two pillars referred to explicitly in the original post, that you accused of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I leave it as an exercise to find them.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, not following you. If there's some gross violation of Wikipedia's core guidelines going on here why would you need to invoke IAR in order to deal with it? It just seems like a silly handwave to cover up not having a real deletion argument. Artw (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I probably need to DFTT this one, since I'm not sure what your game is, but here goes. Here is a quotation of the argument you are replying to: "Rather than wikilawyering about the precise meaning of GNG, I would invoke WP:IAR which states that there are no rules, only guidelines, to avoid getting stuck in esoteric wikilawyering discussions when the issue at hand is clear to any child that has not learnt the guidelines. Here, it is very clear that since: All sources are biased toward the paranormal POV (whether they really believe it or write it for bait-and-click is irrelevant), WP:OR should be followed here, Saying something that the sources do not say is WP:OR, ... it necessarily follows that the article is going to be POV until and unless a critical source is found."  (I have helpfully provided some clues to the invocation of the pillars.  Policies like WP:OR are also mentioned rather prominently, but I expect you can find those for yourself.)  You have compared this argument to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which says "Content on Wikipedia is judged based on its compliance with guidelines, not its physical appearance. Once you can make all the content comply, you can then work with that and tidy it up."  Yet it is precisely "compliance with the guidelines" that the argument concerns.  You can question the substance of those reasons, but IAR was only invoked to get past all of the GNG stuff.  We do have other guidelines that articles must follow.  In fact, that is linked in the very WP:IDONTLIKEIT guideline that you pointed us to!   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced that IAR is a useful deletion rationale and feel that it particularly isn't in this case. Any deletion vote not supported by proper reasoning should probably be disregarded by the closer. Artw (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IAR is not the deletion rationale. The deletion rationale is the bit after  "Rather than wikilawyering about the precise meaning of GNG, I would invoke WP:IAR which states that there are no rules..."  You have offered zero explanation why what follows that sentence is not "proper reasoning".  The reasoning is quite clear, rooted both in policy and pillars.  You might disagree with that reasoning.  But the onus is on you to say why, not to dismiss it for on specious grounds.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If your deletion rationale doesn't involve IAR you could probably have saved a lot if confusion by not mentioning it. Artw (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm... My deletion rationale did not mention IAR. You must have me confused with someone else.  You responded to this edit of Tigraan's with this remark, that showed no sign of having even read the post that it was in response to.  In fact, you still don't seem to have read it, despite having replied to it in the first place, and then having it repeated back to you.  Now, somehow it's my responsibility for not making the original rationale clearer?  At what point do you bear any responsibility to read the bloody thing you're replying to?  You can't even get the damned author right!  I'm at this point rather sure you're trolling.  Either that or you need to come back once you've sobered up.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It is Tigraan who should probably have left their deletion rational as a straight OR one and not invoked IAR. Why you've leapt in to so passionately defend the use of IAR in deletions I have no idea. Artw (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my last post, where I said this: "The deletion rationale is the bit after 'Rather than wikilawyering about the precise meaning of GNG, I would invoke WP:IAR which states that there are no rules...' You have offered zero explanation why what follows that sentence is not "proper reasoning".  The reasoning is quite clear, rooted both in policy and pillars.  You might disagree with that reasoning.  But the onus is on you to say why, not to dismiss it for on specious grounds."
 * I am not "defending the use of IAR as a deletion rationale" because that was not the deletion rationale given. In fact, here (for the second time in this thread) I will helpfully reiterate the deletion rationale that is under discussion once again: "Here, it is very clear that since: All sources are biased toward the paranormal POV (whether they really believe it or write it for bait-and-click is irrelevant), WP:OR should be followed here, Saying something that the sources do not say is WP:OR, ... it necessarily follows that the article is going to be POV until and unless a critical source is found." I am defending this as a valid perspective on guidelines and policy.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Invoking IAR to declare it OR or in violation of any other rule, policy or guideline is nonsensical. Stripped of IAR it's merely a OR argument I don't particularly buy. Artw (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're allowed not to "buy" it. But you're not really allowed to dismiss it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  That was wrong.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the context of a deletion discussion what distinguishes IAR from IDONTLIKEIT? - seems a pretty reasonable supposition to me. And if it's not IAR, then this long super indented conversation is a waste of everyone's time. Artw (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it is not really a "reasonable supposition". WP:IAR is a pillar of Wikipedia.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a small part of an essay, that is not even relevant here.  The reason for deletion was not "Delete, IAR".  This is clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension.  I repeated the original rationale twice, and explained the manner in which IAR was invoked.  I repeated one of my replies a second time, because you apparently hadn't understood it the first time.  That should be more than enough.  Yet, here you go again: "what distinguishes IAR from IDONTLIKEIT, derp?"  Well, read the damned thread.  We're done here.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh the irony, I brought up IAR precisely to deter a super-long conversation on GNG, and we got a super-long conversation on IAR.

Just to reformulate my position in case it is better understood, I am not claiming "IAR is a reason for deletion" (which would be not even an argument). I am claiming IAR offers a solution to the conflict I perceive between three important policies, which are (summarized): These are only in conflict because there is a problem with the sources. I see no way to write an article that does not directly contradict any of those three guidelines, and I prefer to sacrifice GNG in this particular instance because it is better to be silent that to speak BS. If someone sees the third way, please be WP:BOLD.
 * 1) GNG which means this should be covered, because it is definitely notable;
 * 2) OR which means we should not add stuff that is not in the sources;
 * 3) NPOV (and possibly FRINGE, but ironically, the fringe view in the sources seems to be that dolls don't kill people) which means we should not give undue weight to paranormal views.

I am very much opposed to IAR to remove notable content. I am also very much opposed to IAR to leave POV content. Basically, I am opposed to IAR as the sole or main justification for anything; but what are we supposed to do here? Do you disagree with my analysis that there is a conflict of policies, or do you think GNG should not be the weak link? Tigraan (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that if there's an unresolvable conflict between NPOV and the GNG, NPOV has to prevail. Notability is a guideline and NPOV is core policy.  If I thought it was impossible to write an NPOV article then I would be advocating a redirect outcome (but not delete).  I think it ought to be possible, with care, to write a NPOV article about this.— S Marshall  T/C 00:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit by Sławomir Biały AGF?
Sławomir is changing the revisions here. I believe version written here to be most acceptable per NPOV, sensationalism has been reduced. When building an encyclopedia we use discretion with the content we put in. It is perfectly acceptable to use biased sources as long as the article we write is neutral. We try to reduce sensational claims to ensure NPOV is established. An editor with your knowledge should know this, which I why I cannot understand why you are adding sensational claims and then using those claims as rational for delete. I hope other editors can compare the two versions and revert if necessary. Valoem  talk   contrib  16:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You and others have defended the sources used in the article as serious, reliable, fact-checked sources. You yourself invited a comparison of the sources in the article with the news portion of the New York Times.  When a news item there states a fact, we repeat that fact in the encyclopedia, with a citation.  That is what it means to be a reliable source: we are relying on that source for our facts.  Rather crudely, an encyclopedia is an organized collection of facts.
 * Yet now we are being told that these sources may not be so reliable after all. Instead, that they are biased sources.  I can appreciate that perspective, but it does rather change the nature of the conversation in regards to the article (assuming that we all agree, which is not quite clear).  The first question we should ask is, "What is the bias?"  If we cannot identify what that bias is, then we cannot hope to curate a place for such content in an encyclopedia.  Given the monoculture of opinion presented in those sources, we cannot hope to create an article by balancing one set of "facts" against another, in a sort of he-said-she-said parity (not that this would necessarily be a good idea anyway).  Rather, the only option down this road is to observe that each and every source is solely based on the testimony of Lorraine Warren (hardly a neutral party in this).  So really these are only primary sources for the opinions of Lorraine Warren.  In that case, the nature of the question then becomes: Are the opinions of Lorraine Warren notable enough for a stand-alone article?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd rather others chime in and see if what your doing is considered disruptive. Especially given the fact you are doing this in the middle of an AfD, rather than request for comment afterwards. We use multiple source and write the most neutral version given the sources. In fact we can even use WP:PRIMARY source with discretion, but never to establish notability. It is rather obvious you do not support the revision you made, so why do it? This kind of aggressive behavior could lead to an ANI, FYI. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we should have a discussion in good faith about the sources. That seems like it would be a much more productive expenditure of time than going to ANI, which would indeed be a great disruption.  The keep votes have systematically defended the reliability of the sources used in the article.  Assuming that we mean the same thing by "reliable source", namely a source that can be relied upon for factual content in an encyclopedia, then the article should factually report what is in those sources.  If we mean something different by "reliable sources", then that changes the discussion.  Here I feel like you are asking me to believe two contradictory things: (1) that the sensationalist sources are reliable, and held up to the same set of journalistic standards as newswire reports from outfits like the New York Times, but yet (2) the sources really are not reliable, being biased towards a sensationalist/supernaturalist point of view.  These are two mutually incompatible possibilities.  If the sources are reliable, then the article must be written from those sources.  If not, then attestations that the GNG applies are wholly without merit, as that guideline specifically emphasizes that it is coverage in reliable sources that creates a presumption of notability.  This does not, in itself, mean that the article should be deleted.  But the question becomes much more nuanced then.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If IBT's source is an issue we can remove the source, though I generally have an issue with sources subject editorial review deemed unreliable. Sources can always be improved, but this does not deny the notability of the subject in question. It never has and cleanup is rarely grounds for deletion. Valoem   talk   contrib  01:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sources can always be improved"&mdash;this statement assumes that better sources exist. What is the basis for this presumption.  "I generally have an issue with sources subject editorial review deemed unreliable"&mdash;your attitude here and at Talk:Annabelle (doll) appears to be inconsistent with being able to rely on these sources for making factual statements.  So, I wonder what you mean by "reliable sources".  It cannot be the same thing that I am thinking of.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that's an interesting post that could spawn a productive discussion. "A source that can be relied upon for factual content in an encyclopedia."  That's well-phrased, and I'd like to agree, but I think it's subtler than that.  I certainly think evaluating sources in this way is the most important job an encyclopaedia editor can do.  I also think it's rare to come across a 100% reliable source, and there are relatively few sources that are 0% reliable as well. Taking for example the yahoo source, some people might say "interview, so primary source, so inadmissible".  In fact the true case is that it's basically an interview but does contain some background and narrative related directly by the journalist to the reader, so it's a primary source with secondary source elements, and how reliable it is depends on what sentence it's being used to support.  For example, I would not be comfortable relying on that source to say "The doll moves around".  But I would absolutely rely on it to say "Lorraine Warren has claimed that the doll had moved around in her apartment."  In other words, I think we have sources that can be used to say a limited range of things.— S Marshall  T/C 23:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree in general that "reliable" has multiple meanings. A company's website is a reliable source to establish who their CEO is, but not whether they abide by the law; a well-known magnetizer's blog could bring notability to a subject, although its scientific content is impossible to trust. However, in that particular issue, I fear we end up with an article about Lorraine Warren's claims on the doll, not the doll itself. Tigraan (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's productive to distinguish Lorraine Warren's claims from the doll itself. Without the claims the doll wouldn't be notable.  Without the doll there would be no claims.  So the article has to be about the claims about the doll.  I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with writing an article about Lorraine Warren's claims, given the sources we have.— S Marshall  T/C 20:43, 20 March 2015 (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.