Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of Dracula (1931 film)


 * 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, WP:SNOW. --soum talk 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Curse of Dracula (1931 film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This entire article is original research and the use of the phrase pseudo-science pretty much says it all as there is no way to prove that any of the events described are related or verifiable as such. This is the only page that this editor has created so there is no history of good editing on other articles MarnetteD | Talk 12:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - solid mass of original research. Otto4711 12:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. Do we have a policy on conspiracy theories? 'Cause we should. --Ispy1981 12:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment all conspiracy theories were destroyed by controlled demolition one September morning... Lugnuts 13:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's what you say... -- Charlene 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - not an encyclopedia article. Eusebeus 13:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - were it a notable conspiracy theory, there would be reliable non-trivial sources to support it. This is simply original research by an editor. -- Charlene 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also has misleading title. Pavel Vozenilek 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Misguided OR. A few people associated with the two films mentioned died or had professional setbacks... the article rather desperately tries to shape this into a "curse".  A similar article could probably be written about almost any film older than a few years.  Indeed, the article itself even acknowledges how shaky its own reasoning is, including (along with a list of exceptions, the following: "Dracula has proliferated in all media in the years since the 1930's and no curse is casually apparent since then. Some of the stars of the 1931 version and most of the stars of Nosferatu escaped this supposed curse."  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Drive a stake in it. OR that has a non-existent film for a title . Clarityfiend 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Garlic and Holy Water The Dracula (1931 film) title is correct - thus the title itself is misleading/incorrect (per WP:FILM there should be a film titled  "Curse of Dracula" (1931), which there isn't).  That aside, unreferenced OR.  SkierRMH 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the title bears little/no relevance to the conspiracy theory content, which belongs alongside curse of Tutenkhamen. == SockpuppetSamuelson 11:12, 25 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.