Deletion of Paul is dead

Comment: there are two entire books written on the subject which are mentioned in the references section thus I don't see how  comes into play.  I just did a quick Nexis search, it's been mentioned hundreds of times (almost two dozen in the New York Times alone), so there's plenty of material out there to fix it.  The article needs oodles of work, but not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: both. The first three words of the nominator's own comments at the top say it all. Many articles, books, etc. Clear case of  here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)

Comment: No issue of notability or  based on the 5 inline citations and 2 book references.  Looks like some OR in at least one section, but OR issues are generally a cleanup issue, not an AfD one.  I'd say the "Clues" article is the more specious of the two, any useful information there should probably be merged into this one.  The topic of a hoax that made international news is the article, not the trivial minutia about that hoax
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE)

Comment: it.  It's so notable that it's even cited at  as an example of a fringe theory that deserves an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: even I've heard of this. Books were written about it. I guess it is trivial, in a way, but deserves an article due to the attention it received for years. If the article needs improvement, it's still no need to delete. BTW, regarding '''inline citations''' - I think it's reasonable to require them on any sourced article, to prove that the Wiki editors haven't simply been injecting  into the article willy-nilly. And as Paul McCartney is still (''purportedly'') a living person, W's biographical rules require that we be very strict in requiring everything to be well-sourced. And hey, also, Wikipedia's an encyclopedia: footnotes make our articles look better
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: One of the most famous urban legends of the last century.  As mentioned above, the nom has confused "sources" with "inline citations."   requires the former, and does ''not'' require the latter.  One of the sources listed is a '''book''' about this rumor
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)