Deletion of Annabelle (doll)

Comment: to the film (maybe selectively merge; otherwise delete) - although I am convinced that this passes GNG, just as other bollocks like 2012_phenomenon although maybe by a smaller margin, the lack of any critical source whatsoever (unlike for the 2012 thing) makes it impossible to write a serious article without doing original research (and yes, claiming that "dolls don't move, idiot" inside the article would be original research). It is very clear that putting everything in conditional form () does not change that
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ALLEGED)

Comment: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Bushman, where it was unsuccessfully argued that an article should exist because the topic got a lot of press. Although sensational claims about the subject were carried https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Boyd+Bushman%22&tbm=nws by large number of news and media outlets, many of them normally considered "reliable", those claims had not generated the required |sustained and in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Notability#Events, "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WHYN)

Comment: We have now an abundance of credulous sources (mostly so-called "entertainment news" that actually concern the film) and a total absence of sceptical fact-based ones.  So it does not seem to be possible to have an article that conforms to .  The cited sources also have / issues.  For example, the main source, cited a total of nine times, is the International Business Times piece, which states factually that the doll could move on its own, that it wrote messages, and that it attacked people.  The ''Glamour'' article repeats the same set of claims.  Although editors expressing an interest in keeping the article are apparently willing to blur the line between "factual" sources and... whatever it is the article is currently citing, this is not reliable sourcing for an encyclopedia.  Entertainment/tabloid news, for an article of this kind, is not considered to be reliable sourcing per  and .  I referred above to a "reductio ad absurdum" if we were to write the article based on assuming that these sources are factual.  Well it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annabelle_(doll)&oldid=651022769 now seems that the absurdum has been reductio'ed.  We have an article that claims, as fact, that a doll attacked and killed people, that it levitated, etc.  I also referred above to .  Sources in entertainment news are not the kind of sources that would apply to , which demands ''serious'' coverage by ''reliable'' sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NEWSORG||WP:SENSATION||WP:FRINGE||WP:NFRINGE)