- 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 WP:SNOW delete. It's obvious that there's no possibility this article will be kept, and since there's literally not a single reliable source used, even if it's determined that the topic is notable it will need to be blanked and rebuilt from scratch. There seems nothing to be gained by keeping this AFD open for more people to pile on. ‑ Iridescent 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
1957 Pollock Twins case
- 1957 Pollock Twins case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Every statement in this article is sourced to unreliable sources. Rather than just have a blank article, it should just be deleted. St Anselm ( talk) 10:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep How are these unreliable sources? And they are not just terrible pop-culture mystery-mongering books as commented below.
- Reader's Digest 1992 article "Life Beyond Death" page 59- Snippet view is not clear.
- It was mentioned outside England in 1966 issue of The Illustrated Weekly of India.
- Vincent Gaddis mentioned the case in his book The curious world of twins in 1972.
- Australian newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald published an article about an Indian professor visiting British twins in 1966.
- If Youtube videos can be shown, FTD news, verified youtube channel. X-Men XtremE 11:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a non-notable WP:FRINGE topic. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Check the above sources again.
- Delete Sources in the article are terrible pop-culture mystery-mongering books. Googling doesn't find too many better sources or evidence of notability. As an example of the bad sourcing, near the end a scientific journal is mentioned but then the sentence is sourced to The Express - where's a link to the actual journal article? Also
Ian Stevenson's coverage of this case could be a source, where's that? Needs some criticism of the case to adhere to
WP:FRINGE as well. Either majorly clean this up, or
WP:TNT. --
Krelnik (
talk) 13:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ Krelnik: I stumbled on Ian Stevenson's coverage of this case from a Google Scholar search: pp71–3 of Children Who Remember Previous Lives" (in Chapter 4 "Fourteen Typical Cases of Children Who...") Qwfp ( talk) 15:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly speedy under G7. Author has deleted this, and other articles they created and were nominated for deletion. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 14:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- RickinBaltimore I didn't delete, I was frustrated. X-Men XtremE 14:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per lack of reliable sources. HealthyGirl ( talk) 17:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The votes should not be whether claims re-incarnation of the girls were true or fake/hoax. The incident is notable as I have shown above with reliable sources. X-Men XtremE 02:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, as nominator I want to strongly affirm the first sentence above - this discussion should have nothing to do with whether the girls were really reincarnated or whether it was a mistake/hoax. But sources that believe the girls to be reincarnated are unlikely to be reliable. And in this case, even factual claims can be dubious - e.g. the similarity of the girls' scars. AFAIK all we have is the father's word for it that they were the same. So statements as we currently have in the article ("Jacqueline had a scar mark on her forehead above her right eye. Jennifer had an unusual white scar mark in the same place with the same shape.") are completely unacceptable. St Anselm ( talk) 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Dbrodbeck ( talk) 11:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (or possibly Redirect to Ian Stevenson#Case_studies). Stevenson's various reincarnation writings are the only non- WP:SENSATIONal source that covers the subject, but even those are not enough WP:FRIND coverage to justify a stand alone article. The rest of the sourcing is either hopelessly fringe or passing mention "lists of weird things" articles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The sources for this article are of very low quality, and the editor who wrote this article needs to study what reliable sources actually are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "News of the Wierd" sources are not enough. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 12 June 2016 (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.
- 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 WP:SNOW delete. It's obvious that there's no possibility this article will be kept, and since there's literally not a single reliable source used, even if it's determined that the topic is notable it will need to be blanked and rebuilt from scratch. There seems nothing to be gained by keeping this AFD open for more people to pile on. ‑ Iridescent 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
1957 Pollock Twins case
- 1957 Pollock Twins case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Every statement in this article is sourced to unreliable sources. Rather than just have a blank article, it should just be deleted. St Anselm ( talk) 10:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep How are these unreliable sources? And they are not just terrible pop-culture mystery-mongering books as commented below.
- Reader's Digest 1992 article "Life Beyond Death" page 59- Snippet view is not clear.
- It was mentioned outside England in 1966 issue of The Illustrated Weekly of India.
- Vincent Gaddis mentioned the case in his book The curious world of twins in 1972.
- Australian newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald published an article about an Indian professor visiting British twins in 1966.
- If Youtube videos can be shown, FTD news, verified youtube channel. X-Men XtremE 11:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a non-notable WP:FRINGE topic. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Check the above sources again.
- Delete Sources in the article are terrible pop-culture mystery-mongering books. Googling doesn't find too many better sources or evidence of notability. As an example of the bad sourcing, near the end a scientific journal is mentioned but then the sentence is sourced to The Express - where's a link to the actual journal article? Also
Ian Stevenson's coverage of this case could be a source, where's that? Needs some criticism of the case to adhere to
WP:FRINGE as well. Either majorly clean this up, or
WP:TNT. --
Krelnik (
talk) 13:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ Krelnik: I stumbled on Ian Stevenson's coverage of this case from a Google Scholar search: pp71–3 of Children Who Remember Previous Lives" (in Chapter 4 "Fourteen Typical Cases of Children Who...") Qwfp ( talk) 15:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly speedy under G7. Author has deleted this, and other articles they created and were nominated for deletion. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 14:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- RickinBaltimore I didn't delete, I was frustrated. X-Men XtremE 14:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per lack of reliable sources. HealthyGirl ( talk) 17:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The votes should not be whether claims re-incarnation of the girls were true or fake/hoax. The incident is notable as I have shown above with reliable sources. X-Men XtremE 02:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, as nominator I want to strongly affirm the first sentence above - this discussion should have nothing to do with whether the girls were really reincarnated or whether it was a mistake/hoax. But sources that believe the girls to be reincarnated are unlikely to be reliable. And in this case, even factual claims can be dubious - e.g. the similarity of the girls' scars. AFAIK all we have is the father's word for it that they were the same. So statements as we currently have in the article ("Jacqueline had a scar mark on her forehead above her right eye. Jennifer had an unusual white scar mark in the same place with the same shape.") are completely unacceptable. St Anselm ( talk) 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Dbrodbeck ( talk) 11:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (or possibly Redirect to Ian Stevenson#Case_studies). Stevenson's various reincarnation writings are the only non- WP:SENSATIONal source that covers the subject, but even those are not enough WP:FRIND coverage to justify a stand alone article. The rest of the sourcing is either hopelessly fringe or passing mention "lists of weird things" articles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The sources for this article are of very low quality, and the editor who wrote this article needs to study what reliable sources actually are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "News of the Wierd" sources are not enough. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 12 June 2016 (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.