Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Angel (suspected spontaneous human combustion victim)


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack Angel (suspected spontaneous human combustion victim)
Delete. Fails WP:BIO - the couple of references are trivial. It's most likely bullshit, anyway, and it does not befit us to re-report what the Reader's Digest is not sure about. It fails WP:RS a lot. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can certainly withdraw you nomination. But it would be appreciated if you'd note what changed your opinion. Williamborg (Bill) 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a hoax with multiple non-trivial sources about it. After the AfD closes, I will solicit consensus on merging this into the spontaneous human combustion article, since the subject here is the hoax, not the person. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Maybe even speedy. rootology (T) 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Agree that it fails reliable sources. Even if sourced, it is hard to imagnie a context in which this would be a useful entry&mdash;perhaps as an example of the material around which pseudoscience is built. Williamborg (Bill) 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with scalding water or by spontaneous combustion (whichever is more likely) per nom. Yomangani talk 01:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are reliable enough. It seems like an interesting story, I wouldn't mind learning more about it. Aren't we allowed to have interesting off-beat articles? Nlsanand 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean, R.D. is reporting this under "Facts and Fallacies". I am not suggesting that R.D. is itself unreliable (perish the thought!) - but at least its uh... "Facts and Fallacies" section is not something that we should be relying upon. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll find that Facts and Fallacies is the name of the book. Uncle G 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  I think I saw this in a tabloid once... American Patriot 1776 02:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no assertion of notability. --Ter e nce Ong (T 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable among Forteans as one of the few people to allegedly survive an episode of SHC. Reader's Digest is not the only available source; for example, he's been mentioned in Skeptical Inquirer  and multiple books (eg, The Entrancing Flame).  Granted, his story could very well be a lot of "bullshit," but the veracity of his claims is totally irrelevant.  We have plenty of articles on known hoaxes, like the Alien autopsy.  All that matters is that the article presents the facts of his case in an objective matter. Zagalejo 05:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would squarely call this a radical reading of our encyclopedia's puposes and rules. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What, specifically? I might not have been entirely clear in my above comments, since I wrote them rather quickly. Zagalejo 19:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Keep Multiple non-trivial sources per above. Catchpole 06:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and please add the additional sources. Side note: can we do something about that outrageous bracketed modifier? It's far too long to be remembered. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Added. Uncle G 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Jack Angel (spontaneous combustion)? It's shorter, NPOV (which I guess what the other title was aiming for) and unlikely to clash with that other Jack Angel who caught fire. Yomangani talk 15:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Well known quack-science. It was even mentioned on a CSI episode. 205.157.110.11 09:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. Agree with Mgm that the modifier ought to be shortened, but it may take some thought as to what.  Are there other Jack Angels that we need to disambiguate? - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Quite interesting. Do not delete. - Doxent 18:14 22 August 2006 (CEST)
 * Delete. Anecdotal and entertaining in it's futility, but otherwise non-notable. / Peter Isotalo 12:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, per reamrks by Zagalejo - it is one of the few cases cited where the alleged victim survived. the article can be worded in such a way as to indicate there is doubt about the SHC aspect of the case.  If we held all the cryptid articles up to the same standard of proof we'd not have articles on Bigfoot or the Waheela or other articles I've been working on.  Perhaps instead of having it as a separate article it could be merged with a more general article on SHC.Lisapollison 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, Enough sources and notability to justify the article Averisk 17:57, 25 August 2006 (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.