Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Worson Incident

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 kept a while ago, and the result was moved to Talk:James Worsin incident. I'm cut and pasting the result here to fix log issues. - Bobet 16:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

James Worson incident

This "incident" looks like a hoax. Even if it isn't, this is not notable enough for an article. If verifies, I guess it could be merged with some paranormal article. DCEdwards1966 02:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, obvious fiction, prank, silly vandalism, could be a speedy. Wyss 03:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probable prank, 27 Google hits for James Worson. JoaoRicardo 03:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:. I wouldn't exactly qualify this as a prank or "fiction" in the true sense of the word. While not notable in the Google sense, this "incident" has been featured in various print books describing the supernatural. One should also consider the historical factor (an 1873 incident won't feature as prominently as other things). I'm making a comment instead of a vote because I don't know how much WP documents the "unexplained" (probably the same as "supernatural theories", ie, not much), but I can comment that this incident has been mentioned in various print books in the past. However, if you want an NPOV article, I can't see this being anything larger than a stub, so it probably deserves a merge, at most (and probably a delete, if WP doesn't usually document supernatural theories like this one). --Deathphoenix 14:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep, no need for a merge - I've put an appropriate category on. This isn't a hoax (article, anyway; I remain of cours neutral on the incident itself). This IP has been contributing a few of these. I've added an appropriate category and a note on the IP's talk page - David Gerard 17:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (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.