Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabelle (doll)
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
— User:Sławomir, 11:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NEWSORG||WP:SENSATION||WP:FRINGE||WP:NFRINGE (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)