This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
{{Press
| subject = article | author = Travis Pittman | title = 'Annabelle' fans freak out after rumor that doll escaped from Occult Museum | org = Fox | url = https://www.fox43.com/article/news/nation-world/annabelle-doll-escape-rumor-musuem/507-774f2b22-cdf9-46f1-823e-0f6b7d0c6
We must reduce sensationalized claims, it is best to maintain details with multiple sources, otherwise it would not be NPOV. Valoem talk contrib 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Valoem, could you please state plainly why you think the sources used in the article are reliable for REDFLAG statements. Three editors here have disagreed with you, yet you continue to push the same garbage. I've been commenting here, per your edit summaries. But no comments from you are forthcoming. In such situations, silence on your behalf implies that you agree with the very clear consensus here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Should there be a section discussing the legend of the doll? Is there enough in my draft where it clearly separates fact and fiction?-- Deathawk ( talk) 05:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to possibly re-open this debate. I, unknowingly, came head first into this debate when I decided to update the content to reflect the legend, not knowing that a similar section had appeared before. I say "similar" because I believe the section I made was written in a style where it was much more apparent that it was dubious if this actually happened. The original can be found hereile my version can be found here. My draft I would state is less detailed and focuses on the raw facts of the story. It also uses words and transition at every opportunity to make it clear that this is only what is alleged to of happen while the original seemed to of only included a handful of words alluding to such. I believe that the differences weren't fully taken into account when it was deleted and would like to re open this debate. -- Deathawk ( talk) 05:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
After much digging, I found a couple of sources that don't approach the topic sensationally or merely repeat claims uncritically. I used these to create a short "Legend" section [1] which I hope will meet with everybody's approval. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The lead image is too dark, too poor quality, and too low resolution to be useful in an encyclopedic context. It was obviously copied from a non-free newspaper source [2] and cropped and darkened for dramatic effect. I've nominated it for deletion at Wikimedia Commons [3], but there isn't any reason to keep it in the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
86.97.14.81 ( talk) 07:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC) The Annabelle doll stood up on her two toes and smashed the glass with them, then she flew to somebody and possessed them! Congrats, we all thought 2020 was bad...
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simplest thing first, the article doesn't mention that the doll is a Raggedy Ann doll until the middle of the section describing the doll being used as inspiration for the Conjuring. I think the article would be better if it mentioned this earlier and linked to the page through the following change.
"According to the Warrens, a student nurse was given the doll in 1970."
can be changed to
"According to the Warrens, a student nurse was given the Raggedy Ann doll in 1970."
More substantially, I think that this would allow for the image to be entirely removed from the article. The image currently used is purposely creepy and gives the article a less than encyclopedic tone. Ideally a better image would be found, but in the mean time, I think the article would be better off with no image and a mention that is is a raggedy ann doll. Fleural ( talk) 13:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "occult museum" to "now closed occult museum" to avoid ambiguity for people looking to visit the museum 2001:56A:F885:A400:6DC1:6841:1D0:1A8E ( talk) 06:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
{{Press
| subject = article | author = Travis Pittman | title = 'Annabelle' fans freak out after rumor that doll escaped from Occult Museum | org = Fox | url = https://www.fox43.com/article/news/nation-world/annabelle-doll-escape-rumor-musuem/507-774f2b22-cdf9-46f1-823e-0f6b7d0c6
We must reduce sensationalized claims, it is best to maintain details with multiple sources, otherwise it would not be NPOV. Valoem talk contrib 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Valoem, could you please state plainly why you think the sources used in the article are reliable for REDFLAG statements. Three editors here have disagreed with you, yet you continue to push the same garbage. I've been commenting here, per your edit summaries. But no comments from you are forthcoming. In such situations, silence on your behalf implies that you agree with the very clear consensus here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Should there be a section discussing the legend of the doll? Is there enough in my draft where it clearly separates fact and fiction?-- Deathawk ( talk) 05:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to possibly re-open this debate. I, unknowingly, came head first into this debate when I decided to update the content to reflect the legend, not knowing that a similar section had appeared before. I say "similar" because I believe the section I made was written in a style where it was much more apparent that it was dubious if this actually happened. The original can be found hereile my version can be found here. My draft I would state is less detailed and focuses on the raw facts of the story. It also uses words and transition at every opportunity to make it clear that this is only what is alleged to of happen while the original seemed to of only included a handful of words alluding to such. I believe that the differences weren't fully taken into account when it was deleted and would like to re open this debate. -- Deathawk ( talk) 05:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
After much digging, I found a couple of sources that don't approach the topic sensationally or merely repeat claims uncritically. I used these to create a short "Legend" section [1] which I hope will meet with everybody's approval. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The lead image is too dark, too poor quality, and too low resolution to be useful in an encyclopedic context. It was obviously copied from a non-free newspaper source [2] and cropped and darkened for dramatic effect. I've nominated it for deletion at Wikimedia Commons [3], but there isn't any reason to keep it in the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
86.97.14.81 ( talk) 07:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC) The Annabelle doll stood up on her two toes and smashed the glass with them, then she flew to somebody and possessed them! Congrats, we all thought 2020 was bad...
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simplest thing first, the article doesn't mention that the doll is a Raggedy Ann doll until the middle of the section describing the doll being used as inspiration for the Conjuring. I think the article would be better if it mentioned this earlier and linked to the page through the following change.
"According to the Warrens, a student nurse was given the doll in 1970."
can be changed to
"According to the Warrens, a student nurse was given the Raggedy Ann doll in 1970."
More substantially, I think that this would allow for the image to be entirely removed from the article. The image currently used is purposely creepy and gives the article a less than encyclopedic tone. Ideally a better image would be found, but in the mean time, I think the article would be better off with no image and a mention that is is a raggedy ann doll. Fleural ( talk) 13:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "occult museum" to "now closed occult museum" to avoid ambiguity for people looking to visit the museum 2001:56A:F885:A400:6DC1:6841:1D0:1A8E ( talk) 06:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)