Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of allegedly cursed objects

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. A discussion about a potential move can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 08:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of allegedly cursed objects

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The sources here are very poor. Really not sure if this passes NLIST. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I updated the sources to include more reliable sources and more could be added from print sources. Most of the items in the list have an article in Wikipedia and are notable. Since there are several citated examples of these items being discussed as a group, it also meets the requirement for a list article. Rublamb (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that discuss them as a group are not reliable, e..g Mental Floss or "US Ghost Adventures". PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Floss is not on WP:RSPSOURCES as unreliable. Regardless, the following should meet the definition of reliable sources to meet NLIST:

Ocker, J. W. Cursed Objects: Strange but True Stories of the World's Most Infamous Items (Book)
"These Are the World's Most Haunted Paintings". The Observer
"7 Cursed Objects Around the World Guaranteed to Ruin Your Life". Fodor's Travel Guides
"Beware the Legends Behind These National Park Souvenirs". Atlas Obscura

Rublamb (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Observer piece is about paintings, which this article is not. The rest of the sources are either WP:PROFRINGE or are not really about the subject, e.g. the Atlas Obscura piece. Ocker appears to be a cryptozoologist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis appears to be off. Paintings are objects and are included in this list; thus, The Observer article is relevant. The list in Atlas Obscura consists of objects and most are included in the article. Ocker is an Edgar Award winning travel writer who has written for The Guardian, The Boston Globe, CNN, and The Atlantic. His prior books have been reviewed in The New York Times, and this one is reviewed in Library Journal here. Fodor's is a reliable source and is not pro-fringe; it is pro-travel, which includes visiting quirky places and objects. Look at it this way: this article is about objects connected to supernatural legends, but is not saying that those legends are true. Thus, this article is not WP:PROFRINGE. Similarly, a reliable source might publish an article about this topic or write a book about this topic without being WP:PROFRINGE. You should not dismiss every possible source (including the Fodor's, Smithsonian and The Guardian) because the topic relates to legends. Rublamb (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A more specific subset would not help a much broader topic pass WP:NLIST. And from the links you sent of the book reviews, that makes me doubt the source more ('Ocker peppers the narrative with qualifiers including "some say," "perhaps," "might just be," and "stories circulated." VERDICT Skeptics will remain unconvinced, but many will enjoy reading about the Hope diamond, Shakespeare's grave, and whether it is safe to ignore a chain letter.' not helping its case). A travel guide is not a reliable source for fringe claims about the supernatural. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need sources to prove the items are cursed or that cursed items exist, just that they have been discussed as a group. Rublamb (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to List of reportedly cursed objects. A WP:GTEST for cursed objects is convincing to me that it's a group topic with enough refs to satisfy WP:NLIST. 5Q5|^✉ 11:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check of existing article names found 10 that use "reportedly", 3 with "reported", 9 with "alleged". So this article's name is out of alignment. I might lean toward "alleged" but would be fine either way. Rublamb (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No opinion on a move. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list article isn’t claiming that these objects are actually cursed. CycoMa2 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2025 (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.