Deletion of Kennedy Curse

Comment: Restricting ourselves just to the title as such we have a book published by a St. Martin's Press|reputable imprint, a http://skepdic.com/kennedycurse.html Skeptic's Dictionary refutation, and http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/26/skakel/index.html quite http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-kennedy-curse-the-_b_20496.html a http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1926999 bit of ongoing media discussion as well as http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/kennedy/stories/tragic.kennedys/index.html other http://www.boston.com/news/packages/jfkjr/glancelaunch.htm wordings. These are sources which consider the number of tragic events itself, the totality, to be notable as opposed to one or two loosely-connected tragedies that have been connected by |synthesis. I tagged for sources a month ago, but this is the type of article that has interest whenever something new happens, which it hasn't lately. The part that bothers me the most is some wording which either treats the "curse" as a real supernatural thing or as something we have to debunk, and that ends up being problematic without sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: It does not matter if a nominator thinks it sounds like it belongs in Parade magazine, or whether it is really a "curse." . It has been widely written about for over 40 years, and thus satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)