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. — Jake Wartenberg 14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Appears to consist entirely of original research. Based almost completely on one 1999 CNN article which doesn't even mention a "Kennedy Curse". Of the other 3 sources used in the article, two are not reliable and also don't mention a "Kennedy Curse". The third (from Newsweek) is used as a citation for events that occurred 15 years after the source was written. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sorry, nom, but a Google book search produces results immediately, the first one of which is The Kennedy Curse, by Edward Klein, published by Macmillan. Headline in The Guardian today: "History of the Kennedy curse". Case closed, I believe. The article needs editing: that timeline/list needs to go, to be replaced by a prose section based on the many, many reliable sources that can be found easily through Google already. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be that reliable sources on the topic of the "Kennedy Curse" exist. However, Wikipedia's "Kennedy Curse" article has existed for over 5 years, and even underwent an AfD almost 2 years ago, yet still has not been able to accrue even one reliable source that actually mentions the "Kennedy Curse". I am not optimistic, at this point, that it ever will. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kennedy Family the term was used in the book title creatively, and i doubt it advocates that there is a "curse" on the family. this article is just a list of tragedies befallen the kennedy family. a large, prominent family. do the math. i doubt if anyone of note will ever mention this idea seriously. if we dont have references to the use of the term "curse" beyond casual or nonserious use, after all these years, then this article isnt really about its subject. since the tragedies are all listed in other articles, no info would be lost. the term is mentioned in the article on kennedys, so redirect thereMercurywoodrose (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect; it's a tiny bit better, as of today, or at least last moment I looked, than it was when I AfD'd it in '07. But it's still a matter of finding, for every entry, a reliable source that says this is part of a "Kennedy Curse". Really, one paragraph in Kennedy Family should cover the whole thing. Oh my, it already does . --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is certainly notable. The information is verifiable. Simply because the article is currently a mess is not a reason to delete. Obviously, as books have been written on the subject, the potential for a full article exists. — MusicMaker5376 04:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename Most people do not take seriously the beliefs that the moon landings were a hoax or that the American government planned 9/11 either but the beliefs do exist. As does the belief in this "curse". Ted Kennedy made reference to it in his Chappaquiddick speech. I suggest the title should be something like "Kennedy curse theory". Someone just moved it to "Kennedy tragedies" but who is to say which of the examples are tragedies? I agree with jpgordon that only examples with a reliable source referring to the "Curse" should be in the article.MrBlondNYC (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah but, the article doesn't actually say anything about the Kennedy Curse; rather, it's a list of people alleged to be evidence of the Kennedy Curse. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article should be more about the concept of the curse itself with only cited examples in it. I'll help it along a little more.MrBlondNYC (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep exactly as titled. As I've noted on the talk page (after moving the article back to Kennedy Curse), the "Kennedy Curse" is not a tabloid judgment but a well-documented part of U.S. folklore. (And that's how it should be described – not, as some may imply, as a factual problem, as if some being had it in for the Kennedys. "Curse" here is largely understood as shorthand for a string of bad events.) By well-documented, I mean that there are over 200 books listed at Google Book Search that include this term. Not only does this provide a rational for keeping the title (versus trying to dig up reliable sources for "Kennedy tragedies" or any other attempt at renaming), but it should also provide months of reading for anyone who wants to improve this article. Given the tremendous quantity of reliable sources, it would be absurd to delete this article. Just mark it with an "improve" tag if necessary. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, about this: make Kennedy Curse a redirect to that section in Kennedy Family that makes mention of the "curse"; and then put the contents of this article into something like "List of Kennedy Curse tragedies" or whatever, and then people can argue about what belongs on such a list. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has existed for over 5 years, and hasn't noticeably improved in that time. An AfD two years ago didn't improve it. It was tagged for improvement in October 2008, and nothing happened. It appears, as a result of this AfD, that a bunch of reliable sources about the "Kennedy tragedies" have now been added, but that doesn't help much, since the article is ostensibly about the "Kennedy Curse". In other words, lots of people have various theories about how this could become a proper article, but no-one seems to be able to actually make it into one. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there has been long discusion of "kennedy curse." This has been discussed and not cooked up by anyone. Leave it as it is. Maybe Ted Kennedy brain tumor should be included in the list. 97.124.255.168 (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 97.124.255.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  According to what WP:RS? That's the whole problem with this. Oh, maybe Ted should be included. And how about Eunice? She got old. That's tragic too. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a ton mentioning "kennedy tragidy" and "kennedy curse" written in many newspapers if you google one. Discussing how tragic some of the kennedy members are. I have seen plenty of kennedy tragidies discussed in many newspapers. Just google one. This is not as there is an entity called "kennedy curse," but some of these newspapers generally talk about the misfortune of the kennedy family not exactly saying they are cursed, but they are unlucky. Well the reason is Ted Kennedy got a brain tumor, which is not exactly natural cause. Anyone that died naturally is fine. Ted Kennedy is little tragic too because of cancer. But this also needs a source whether ted kennedy should be included part of the kennedy tragidy. 97.124.255.168 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brain tumor isn't a "natural cause"? What? Was his brain invaded by aliens? Is it a symptom of anthropogenic global warming? Was his brain actually robotic so any tumor there would be unnatural? Did you actually manage to successfully search for "kennedy tragidy"? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is "kennedy tragedy." I'm sure you understood what I meant. http://www.google.com/search?q=kennedy+curse&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=%22kennedy+tragedies%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=%22kennedy+tragedy%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Maybe to take the heat off of the title, maybe we should make it "Kennedy curse" instead of "Kennedy Curse," which implies that they are technically "cursed." Maybe it should simply become "Kennedy tragedies," but I think "Kennedy curse" returns more entries than "kennedy tragedy." 174.16.130.70 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In the hours after the article was nominated, sufficient sourcing was added to remove any original research problems. Needless to say, the death of Ted Kennedy provided an excuse for the media to remind us of the curse, the litany of tragedy, etc. Katie Couric practically dictated revisions on last night's news. Geez, the 1960s was practically summarized as "His brother was murdered, he broke his back in a plane crash, another brother was murdered, he caused someone to drown". Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is is covered enough widely in mainstream media to be considered notable. Google books proove that scholarly sources are available on the subject. Himalayan 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you misunderstand; nobody has claimed that the "Kennedy Curse" is not notable. We might even need an article about it. We don't have one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AFD then is not the answer. Hard work is the answer. It is the job of an encyclopedia to cover what is notable, if this is notable then it should be kept whatever state it is in and written into a proper article using reliable sources... Himalayan 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. It might be nice to have an article on the "Kennedy Curse". So far, we don't. Even with the addition of several more reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, thank you for withdrawing your nomination? You have just stated that the article you wished to see deleted is on a topic which you say is notable. I don't need to remind you, I hope, that AfD is not for deletion (though your comments above suggest otherwise), and in the time it took you to respond to all the valid keep votes here you could have produced that entire article on the notable topic. It's plain and simple: AfD is not for improvement, and the quality of an article is to be judged separately (not here) from its subject's notability. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure why I would withdraw it. While it may be possible to write an article on the "Kennedy Curse", we have yet to see any concrete evidence that it can be done, and we certainly don't have an article on it now. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but first there would have to be some reliable sources discussing the concept, and that would have to be reflected in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename List of Kennedy deaths, crimes, and maladies, because that's essentially what it is. Later somebody might write a Kennedy curse article true to its name. PhGustaf (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "Kennedy deaths"? Eventually they'll all be listed then; I don't think any of them are immortal. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, I just bought a book on it for £0.90. I'll expand this article when the book arrives, seems a very interesting read... Himalayan 18:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a commonly known term. I don't think it's unfathomable that someone might search for this exact term to see a list of tragedies that have befallen the Kennedy family. Although, perhaps it would be better to rename it to "Kennedy Family Tragedies". HarlandQPitt (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia is not a glossary of terms that people might be looking for. If they want to see a list of tragedies that have befallen the Kennedy family, there are many articles on Wikipedia, starting with Kennedy family. --Crunch (talk)

• Delete C6541 (T↔C) 21:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kennedy family and merge if there's anything to be merged. The opening paragraphs of that article already describe this in enough detail. And, as has been suggested above, at what age does the curse end and who decides this? Or how horrific do the deaths have to be? Just not enough for an encyclopedia in my opinion. Anyone who searches for the term will end up at the family article where they will find out much more about them than a supposed curse I would hope. --candle•wicke 21:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom and Redirect to Kennedy family . The notion of a curse is original research at best, based on one or two articles at best.--Crunch (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reconsidered. See below. --Crunch (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it is clear that the term is widely and commonly used by mainstream reliable sources. While it is discouraging that no clean up was conducted after the last AfD in the long period since the last, need for clean up is not reason to delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very notable subject and it is properly sourced.72.155.236.5 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — 72.155.236.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Wikipedia should not get into political correctness. The subject is in the popular folklore (like it or not) and Wikipedia will serve to provide coherency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultant11 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — Consultant11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • Huh? What does "political correctness" have to do with anything? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, perhaps attacking every person who disagrees with you is not the way to marshal an article through AfD. — MusicMaker5376 01:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only attack here so far is the comment you just made. Not only is it grossly inaccurate (considering that I've responded to only 4 of the 16 Keep/Merge votes), but it's inappropriately personal to link to WP:DICK. Perhaps you should review Matthew 7:5. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fortunately, this discussion can be closed after a couple more days. It appears that the consensus, although not a snowball, is overwhelming. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources clearly exist, indicating notability. The article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep - the whole premise behind the topic is dumb, but so is that behind the idea of a flat earth. In both cases, however, the topics are notable and knowledge of them is widespread. Malick78 (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The lack of improvement of an article in intervening years is not a good argument for deletion. There are many google hits in google books for this. The "curse" is so well known that it has been mocked in The Onion here. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The notion has been in popular circulation for a long time, it's definitely not a WP creation as the nom seems to think. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepPer Wasted Time. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here)`
• Keep Per Malick78 and WastedTime. 3.14 (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have reconsidered my vote and now support a Keep with a rewrite making it clear that 1) This is a theory not a fact; 2) stating the divergent view including statements from the Kennedy family debunking the notion of the curse; and 3) keeping the list of curses to only those that were put forth in the original curse publication (Klein book), not things like Ted Kennedy's cancer death or Eunice Shriver's death from a stroke at age 88. --Crunch (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--the term was coined by Teddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.161.17 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable term. Definitely need to keep/improve the various references to show it is not WP:OR. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a notable term, well sourced, no valid reason for deletion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2009 (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.