Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of Aaron Ramsey


 * 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 delete. Whilst there is some coverage of this, in the article and below, the sources cited are almost invariably very brief mentions of the "curse" and can essentially be summarised as, "you might have heard of the Aaron Ramsey curse, here's some random people tweeting about it". People reporting other people's tweets is not significant coverage satisfying GNG. Fenix down (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Curse of Aaron Ramsey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability standards if the non-reliable sources (most of them) are excluded. Additionally, this is a BLP violation as Ramsey is alive. We shouldn't be perpetuating this sort of nonsense about living people. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Overall, I don't think sources are inadequate, but it does create a borderline WP:BLP issue given the nature of the "topic". Above all, the story behind is so crass that it simply doesn't warrant a standalone article in an encyclopedia, and I'd definitely be against merging to Aaron Ramsey for the same reason. GregorB (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are sufficient to fulfill WP:GNG. It is a supposed sports curse along the lines of the curse of the Bambino. I'm not sure it is a BLP violation because most of the sources in it talk negatively about it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 10:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Curse of the Bambino doesn't single out one living individual does it? The sources here may talk negatively about this "curse" but the existence of the article effectively legitimises what amounts to a rather unpleasant (if ludicrous) campaign against one person. Protecting living individuals from this sort of victimisation trumps GNG in my view. He is quoted in the article as saying he finds the whole thing distasteful and who can blame him? How would you feel if it was you? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wholly non-encyclopaedic trivia.  RobinCarmody (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is sick, WP:TRIVIAL and completely non-encyclopaedic as Robin pointed out. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep do we have any sort of SNG for memes? There's a couple decent sources listed in the article, and a couple other decent sources once you get past all the normal British tabloid fodder such as the American Associated Press . Looks like it does actually pass WP:GNG, and I'm not sure I see anything on WP:BLP that would exclude it? WP:BLP deals with poorly sourced contentious material, not negative material generally, and this appears well-sourced. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly non-notable and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. GiantSnowman 10:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Perhaps worth a mention in Ramsey's article, but as a standalone article, no. Number   5  7  11:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a snow close appropriate here given the BLP violation? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the actual BLP violation? Nothing here is poorly sourced. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The majority of the sources are not reliable but that isn't the real problem. The problem is that it perpetuates and gives credibility to the ludicrous idea that a living person's football playing kills people. Don't you see that? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily call this a "BLP violation", but if I had to formulate a principle which is arguably violated here, it would be this: when adding to a BLP something the person in question would reasonably not want to see in his or her bio, make sure the inclusion of that content has a legitimate encyclopedic justification. GregorB (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not all that fussed with the content, especially considering it's a story that's been picked up internationally in reliable sources such as . It passes WP:GNG, isn't a clear WP:BLP violation, and I don't see any problem mentioning it here. I'm not arguing it's not ludicrous! SportingFlyer  T · C  16:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm undecided on notability until I have more time to review the sources but I don't see this as a WP:BLP issue since nobody is seriously alleging Ramsey is personally responsible for anyone's death, just that there are a series of (mostly) unfortunate events related to some "curse". Even if we take the curse at face value, it's still obviously not Ramsey's fault, he's just scoring goals. Who or what curses things is an interesting philosophical and religious question, but really has nothing to do with this article or this AfD. In any case, there are a lot of sports-related curses and I don't see how they're a BLP issue. Smartyllama (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic trivia. Struway2 (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Today there has been an increase in coverage following 2 deaths that have followed Ramsey's NLD goal, most coming from non-British sources too so I think in light of these new sources, due consideration should be given to this fact and also the fact that most of the delete !votes aren't citing any policy base reason for deletion beyond an apparent POV.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The coverage is largely coming from unreliable sources. I don't think saying a subject is unsuitable for a serious encyclopaedia is "POV".  RobinCarmody (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Excluding unreliable sources, this still passes WP:GNG. It's been talked about in sources such as Newsweek (USA), the Daily News (Uganda) , The Guardian (international) , as.com (Spanish?) , The Chronicle (Zimbabwe) , NESN (USA) , 24Sata (Croatian, tabloid) . There are a number of mentions in British tabloids, but just because the British tabloids talk about something doesn't mean it fails WP:GNG, and I don't see any arguments here that would rebut the presumption that it passes WP:GNG per WP:NOT. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * delete Given the number of celebrities recognized these days I would think almost anything could be linked to a number of celebrity deaths. I don't believe this "curse" has the significant coverage in reliable sources needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2019 (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.