Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman curse

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. The advice to stubify to remove the OR is a very good idea Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superman curse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains only speculation and has no real evidence for a "curse", with certain "victims" having faced little or no hardship at all. The suggestion that the president of the United States of America was murdered because of a work of fiction is, in my opinion, offensive. The article contains few references and just looking at the list I can see none of them mention a "curse" in the title, perhaps none back up this speculation. I don't think this article meets the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia as it merely lists people who have died or who have suffered some sort of hardship that have had a connection with Superman. tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 03:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hits:
Google - 20,600

News - 75

Books - 21

Scholar - 5

Images - 895 (0 labeled for reuse)

Youtube - 386 [1]
Wikipedia - 317 [2]

Simple English - 1 (completely unrelated) [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tb240904 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Delete~~ This is ~~WP:Original research~~ stupid. Bad things happen to almost everybody. What has been done here is to go through the list of every person with some connection to Superman and mention those who had some misfortune as victims of the "curse." I know taste doesn't count for much on WP, but the whole thing is very offensive -- as the nom mentioned. But ~~delete because it's just not notable~~ keep because WP's mission is to reflect what is considered notable by "reliable sources." No matter what the depth they will go WP must follow, by policy. Wolfview (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We all have out superstistions, There are plenty of other articles based on superstition such as things like Bloody Mary. I see new reason to delete. There are gHits. --DefyingGravityForGood (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know most people have superstitions (personally, I don't believe in that kind of stuff), but this particular superstition is not suitable for inclusion on the English language wikipedia as it does not meet notability requirements, it fails WP:SYN and is entirely WP:Original research. It is nonsense, and as I said above the thought that the most powerful man in the world could be killed because of a work of fiction, a claim that is backed up by no references, is offensive. Much of the curses that are included on Wikipedia that I have looked at are complete rubbish. I'll request the deletion of any articles that fail the requirements set by the Wikipedia community. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little unrelated, but it's probably best if you not refer to the President of the United States as "the most powerful man in the world." Guoguo12 --Talk-- 00:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common way to refer to him. It may or may not be true, but it is not offensive. Wolfview (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, all right, okay. But honestly, I don't think anyone would really want to live in a country where the leader is the most powerful man in the world. Just saying. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 11:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it apparently fails WP:SYN. Some of the sources do not specifically attest that the "curse" was by any means related to the deaths or injuries. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adding my vote to this. See my nomination above. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to cast a separate "vote"; an AfD nominator will always be counted as a "delete" recommender unless they specifically say otherwise. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the time being. Generally I'm not a fan of articles which, effectively, promote coincidences into superstitious curses. However, there are sources which discuss the idea of a "Superman curse", so the article in general is not original research. That said, the inclusion of many of the entries is original research, because sources are not provided to establish that the persons were victims of the supposed curse. I note that Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Max Fleischer, Dave Fleischer, Kirk Alyn, Danny Dark, and Marlon Brando, all listed here, each outlived the average life expectancy for white American males born in the years they were born. Richard Donner is still alive and has already passed his life expectancy as well, and the "curse" on him apparently consisted only of his getting fired from directing Superman II -- after which he went on to direct several more hit movies. John F. Kennedy is portrayed here as a victim of the curse as well, because prior to his assassination he had agreed to be portrayed in a "Superman" comic book -- but if curses were real, JFK would already have been subject to the Curse of Tippecanoe, which was noted by the public before Superman ever debuted in comics. The article becomes more absurd by claiming there is a "Superman Video Game Curse", in which videogames about Superman are doomed to be bad games. It should also be noted that one of the sources used in the article that does discuss a curse contains a significant inaccuracy by stating that "previous TV Men Of Steel GEORGE REEVES and KIRK ALYN lived forever in the shadow of their TV careers as Superman, unable to find work and driven to early graves by drink." But Alyn played Superman only in films, not on television, and lived to be 88 years old. I would recommend that if this article is to be kept, it should be limited to including only statements which can be supported by independent sources which comment on the curse (whether in a believing or disbelieving way), and exclude any original research based on the idea of "bad things of any type which happened to anyone with any involvement with Superman or to their relatives". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, an article on similar lines was deleted in 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of Superman, but that article listed only two alleged victims (George Reeves and Christopher Reeve). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the first reference, at about.com ([4]), states "There's as much circumstantial evidence to suggest there isn't a curse as there is to suggest there is." therefore this reference does not exactly support the theory that there is a Superman curse. At first glance, the wikipedia article doesn't suggest that "there isn't a curse". --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 16:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. Sources exist.[5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article isn't "promoting" it per se, but rather cataloguing a folk tale/urban myth that has existed in fact before Christopher Reeve's accident. I remember it being invoked at the time in conversation, and presumably in the news as well. The precise content of the article is a topic for cleanup discussions--it's certainly possible to excise whatever OR does in fact exist, since the underlying myth really does exist, although perhaps not always by this name. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see some sources that refer to the idea of a Superman curse that were published on or before May 26, 1995 (the day before Reeve's accident). I couldn't find any via Google News myself. (Searches for articles containing the words "Superman" and "curse" don't seem to turn up anything relevant published before the accident.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources discuss the concept of a "Superman Curse" or "Curse of Superman." Anything not attributed to a reliable source in the article should be removed, of course. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the whole thing is trivial. A few people said there was a curse after Mr. Reeve's accident. It that worthy of an article? Wolfview (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you describing as "a few people"? I'm looking at sources like "Sports help after 'Superman curse'" Straits Times 07/13/2008, "'Curse of Superman' behind Bloom-Bosworth split" Hindustan Times 09/23/2006, "CURSE! WHAT CURSE?; New hero Brandon vows to defeat Superman jinx" Daily Star 07/13/2006, "Curse of the cape?" Buffalo News 06/25/2006, "Superman curse flies in the face of logic" The Courier Mail 03/11/2006, "BACKSTAGE - SUPERMAN JINX' STRIKES" Daily Post 07/16/2004, "Will the curse ground the new Superman?" Canberra Times 10/18/2003, "HOLLYWOOD STUDIO BATTLES THE SUPERMAN CURSE" The Statesman 08/07/2003, "Is the Superman costume cursed" The Daily Telegraph 08/01/2003, "Curses! Or maybe not; Does the 'Kennedy curse' -- or any curse -- hold water?" Fort Worth Star Telegram 07/19/2003, "'Curse' stalling Superman film" Plain Dealer 10/12/2001, "SUPERMAN CURSE BEGAN IN 1948 ORIGINAL MOVIE MAN OF STEEL DIES" Edmonton Sun 03/25/1999, "THE EVENT THAT GAVE BIRTH TO THE SUPERMAN CURSE" The Record (Bergen County) 12/29/1996, "Superman 'curse' hits again" The Advertiser (Adelaide) 04/26/1996, "Dean not fazed by the curse of Superman" Sunday Mail 04/14/1996 and many, many more. This is obviously not just original research by wikipedia editors, nor is it "a few people said," but rather a multitude of reliable sources around the world writing about this topic over the course of many years, which makes it "worthy of an article." Thanks for asking, Starblueheather (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. News media entertainment writers have nothing better to do than repeat and comment on stupid things that other news media entertainment writers have written. That equals coverage in multiple "reliable sources" and hence WP notability. I will change my vote to Keep. Wolfview (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is ample third person information to demonstrate notability.[6][7][8][9] Dwanyewest (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this article is overly dominated by original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by "use common sense" WP:COMMON. I don't think that any of the sources really say, or believe, that the "curse" is real. They are just repeating each other to entertain the public, as Wolfview observed. The topic has no real importance. It is kind of a case of "one event" repeated over and over by various celebrity beat reporters who need to fill up their pages. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, notability is about the strength of sourcing available, not the current state of the article. AFD is not clean-up. A cursory glance at google spits out [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Issues like original research are solved by editing, not deletion. Someone another 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article about Chelsea Clinton's wedding was up for deletion (not sure how that turned out) on the grounds that just because something is talked about in the news does not require WP to have an article. I think the same principle applies here. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone another's sources seem like a reasonable enough level of coverage to base an article on. Alzarian16 (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.