Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suggested clues for the rumour "Paul is dead"


 * 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.  Singu larity  03:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested clues for the rumour "Paul is dead"

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unsourced. I don't even know if you could source most any of this stuff. Filled to the gills with dubious "clues" such as the assertion that "if a mirror is placed horizontally across the flowers [on the cover of St. Pepper] that spell "BEATLES", a message can be seen that seems to say "BENICE3." What BENICE3 has to do with Paul McCartney's supposed death, I don't know, but the article is a haven for uncourced crap like that. Weasel words like "could be" and "have been suggested to be" abound. Half of the clues contradict each other, then fall all over themselves trying to rectify the contradictions. Was he high on LSD? Was he distracted by a pretty girl? Maybe he was distracted by a pretty girl on LSD! No one knows, but this article has "clues" for every possible interpretation. The absolute gem - a veritable diamond of ridiculous - of the article's clues regards a picture from the liner notes of Magical Mystery Tour - "if the viewer holds it sideways and squints, it appears to be the image of a crushed skull." Does this crap really belong in Wikipedia? &spades;P M C&spades; 04:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as O.R. Redundant nonsense. All you have to do is play the 33 LP of "Strawberry Fields Forever" backwards at 45 RPM and at the very end you hear either "I buried Paul" or "I'm very bored." Clearly the speaker is not saying "Cranberry sauce" as the article claims. I have sacrificed sufficient styli doing just that. Edison 04:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge truly significant sourced material (if there is any, otherwise delete) into Paul is dead, which is only marginally notable. That's where much of the content in this article original came from: this article is a fork (not a POV fork; just a regular content fork). I fear that unsourced frivolous content will build up in the main article again, but that's not necessarily a reason why this article should be kept. Grace notes T § 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't any. Anything sourced (what miniscule little there is) is already at Paul is dead. This is all just self-contradicting crap. &spades;P M C&spades; 05:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've scanned through the article again, and can confirm that there really isn't much mergeable information. Outright deletion seems fine. Grace notes T § 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Try reading the article backwards at 25% faster than the normal speed. All the well referenced and encyclopedic content may appear. Edison 18:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless somebody can provide sources as to why "suggested clues for the rumor" is notable Corpx 06:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gracenotes, above. This doesn't appear to have anything salvageable in it.  --Haemo 06:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Bleach! This article cites unreliable sources...--H| H irohisat  Talk 06:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per obvious. --Folantin 07:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any quality, sourced information, and delete the rest . Not an indiscriminate collection of info, Wikipedia is...-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I mean, this is interesting, sure, but certainly not encyclopedic with so much original research, trivia and speculation.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - So what is Wikipedia going to do with other unsourced urban legends? Porterjoh 09:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Comment - Better move fast then. Start with the Hotel California Satanist rumours...Porterjoh 10:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete them, just like we're going to delete this nonsense. Moreschi Talk 09:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Gracenotes. Strip it down and merge.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 16:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Turn me on, dead man The simple solution is just to merge this back into the Paul is dead article.  Coincidentally, the Paul-is-dead marketing scheme is one of the subjects of today's featured article on the Wiki home page.  Mandsford 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete One article on this topic is quite enough. Abberley2 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever possible into Paul is dead. Mathmo Talk 08:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Certainly a great read for Beatles newbies, but unfortunately full of OR and "maybe"s. Rather delete this article in full and provide an external link on Paul is dead to http://homepages.tesco.net/harbfamily/opd/musicvideo.html (which is cited three out of seven times in this article) and let the unverifiable claims take place outside of wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 10:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. per sgeureka t•c Karstdiver (talk · contribs), 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - as someone with a hand in this article and Paul is dead, if forced to choose I'd rather see it deleted than merged back into Paul is dead, as it's the lesser of two evils, in terms of what is best for the Paul is dead article. Liverpool Scouse 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: I like urban legends and all that, but all of this could be mere conspiracy bullshit for all we know. We have a couple of hundred nice pages like that all over the net anyways. And then we have the new fair use thingies that need to be added to the image and all. Nope, delete it deletionMaestro. --Kaizer13 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I haven't read this in its entirety, but everything I did read was pure unsourced speculation. Yeanold Viskersenn 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete:the reason this page was created in the first place was because all of this unsourced crap appeared in the original Paul is Dead article. The solution should have been to have an external link to a site or two that breaks down the clues, instead of creating an article like this one that should never have found itself on wikipedia. What&#39;s up Dr. Strangelove 05:30, 15 August 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.