Deletion of Time travel urban legends

Comment: The notice at the notability noticeboard was placed due to questions of relevance in relation to the Charlie Chaplin film's article - it was quickly established as a notable Urban Legend but  would apply to giving any analysis in the Chaplin article. Rather than have a series of single Paragraph stubs (as already existed in the Carlssin article) it made sense to cover them within a single article (a prose list of these events) better scope for expansion. I broadly agree about the L2 Paragraph on the man in the 1940's, but as it already had extensive coverage and further coverage occurred as a result of the Chaplin video I feel it should be retained but moved to a different part of the article. Regarding the BLP aspect, we have reliable sources (and I can provide more - including interview with his parents) discussing Robby Todino's mental state in regard to these emails - It is notable that Robby believed that he could make contact with real time travellers - and conducted this activity as a personal attempt to achieve that rather than as part of his multiple commercial spamming operations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Decently sourced" remains a rare quality on Wikipedia.  Though we occasionally get an argument that people and events have to be notable to even be referred to at all, the very first sentence in  is "On Wikipedia, notability determines ''whether a topic merits its own article''." The primary purpose for an encyclopedia is that people consult it to find out more about something that they wish to learn information about
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I'd warrant that creating an entire article and cluding together slightly connected elements, instead of keeping them in their parent articles seems ever more wasteful. At least on of the componesnts - the Chaplin one, should be retained in the parent article. Titor already has its own article. We can categorize articles that have the 'mysterious time traveler' or whatever element. Its the difference between a smart encyclopedia and a |'nyah nyah nyah' one
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: I agree with ScottyBerg --  is no reason to delete a well-sourced article, even if the subject raises eyebrows and giggles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)