Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resurrection Mary


 * 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 keep. John254 01:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection Mary

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article contains no sources and has been tagged as such since January 2007. Doesn't assert notability. Seems to be entirely Original Research. Pdelongchamp (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources being under External links is not the same thing as "no sources", even if it does violate the WP:MOS. In any case, there are hundreds of references found on Google Books, everything from Weird Illinois to a Complete Idiot's Guide to Ghosts and Hauntings. So, a notable ghost story. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Fairly widespread urban myth in Chicago, plenty of citations. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Dhartung. A casual search of Google Books or Google News reveals sufficient reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Article does assert notability (it's the best-known Chicago-area ghost story), and tons of sources are available. Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dhartung. I have updated the tags. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: This is the just the result of a misunderstanding. The sources were added as External links rather than inline citations. They support the entry and assert notability. I'll recode them when I have time, if nobody else does it first. They are all sufficient to support this entry if converted into the correct format. - perfectblue (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: This is a very famous ghost story. Surprised you weren't aware of this, Pdelongchamp.  Next time please try a Google search before launching into this exercise, MrHarman (talk) 04:46, 30 November 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.