- 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. ChetblongT C 03:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Romanov Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Original research and synthesis; OMG! A lot of these guys died! is not the basis for an article Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The *See also* section says it all. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We must agree all these untimely deaths are sign of what can be considered a curse. Without checking out the unfortunate events how can we state there is a curse?... It isn't still needed that some authority to say "this is a curse", interpretating data anybody else can interpret.G.-M. C. 14:57, 19 February 2008
- Delete, weakly. No, we need not agree to anything. But this contains an in-text reference to one book, but doesn't really source its statements to the book; it says that the book was inspired by the curse. If claims of a "Romanov curse" are in fact widespread, and the phrase is not original research or the new coinage of a single author, more than one reliable source ought to exist to document the belief. If such sources can be added, I would cheerfully change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply to G.-M. "all these untimely deaths are sign of what can be considered a curse" - you don't know much about demography, apparently. These deaths are totally typical for the period in which these people lived. And "interpretating data anybody else can interpret": that's almost a definition of original research, which has no place in Wikipedia! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. Assassinations of a ruling family are hardly proof of a "curse". Is there also a Bhutto curse? Children had a high mortality rate centuries ago. Does this mean the whole human race is cursed? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, actually. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom WP:OR. Bardcom (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - couldn't have put it better myself. nancy (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I actually had heard of this idea before but googling was not able to find anything that was a reliable source. Allow recreation if reliable sources can be provided that already talk about the idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pretty broad definition for a curse-- the penultimate victim "died after a stroke at age 83". Mandsford (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone. Clearly original research and tries to attribute every death to the 'curse'. Death rates are no significantly different than other period families. Is it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per other comments. However, I respect the amount of time that's been spent researching this. Perhaps keep it stored in your sandbox and recreate it if a decent number of reliable sources can be found. But I agree this seems like a list of unlinked coincidences. PeterSymonds | talk 20:12, 22 February 2008 (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.