Deletion of 1957 Pollock Twins case

Comment: or possibly '''Redirect''' to Ian Stevenson#Case_studies). Stevenson's various reincarnation writings are the only non-al source that covers the subject, but even those are not enough  coverage to justify a stand alone article. The rest of the sourcing is either hopelessly fringe or passing mention "lists of weird things" articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SENSATION||WP:FRIND)

Comment: Clearly a non-notable  topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Sources in the article are terrible pop-culture mystery-mongering books. Googling doesn't find too many better sources or evidence of notability. As an example of the bad sourcing, near the end a scientific journal is mentioned but then the sentence is sourced to The Express - where's a link to the actual journal article? Also Ian Stevenson's coverage of this case could be a source, where's that? Needs some criticism of the case to adhere to  as well. Either majorly clean this up, or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:TNT)