Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mordrake

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mordrake

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this seems to be a popular legend since it is mentioned in several popular books and songs, the fact that it is just a legend is what is the problem here because no one knows if this Edward Mordrake actually existed. Searching his name on any search engine comes up with either Wikipedia mirrors or a bunch of personal blogs that say things like "reportedly," "supposedly," "rumored." This supposed picture of him cannot even be confirmed as really him. Furthermore, the contents of the article is copied almost word-for-word from this unreliable website. It even says that no reliable medical records of him exist, there are conflicting information about his supposed second face (it seems scientifically impossible for someone to have a fully developed second face with nothing else abnormal), and this legend passed down from generation to generation without reliable proof. Therefore, I do not find any evidence of WP:Verify here. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no, delete, no, not sure, gaaah, why don't our policies cover two-faced Victorian sideshow attractions? I tried Google Books and came up with a few sources. Firstly, a book called 'Strange People' by Frank Edwards published in 1986. Google Books claims the book describes Mordrake as "scion of an aristocratic British family, who had a face on the back of his head. It had eyes, lips, nose and ears. It could see (that is, he could see through its eyes!). It could cry and laugh". Google Books also lists a book titled Ripley's Believe it or not: expect the unexpected! which says that Mordrake "was born a united twin, and had another face on the reverse of his — that of a beautiful girl whose eyes used to follow you around the room." Another Ripley's book, this one subtitled Extremely Weird repeats the same story. It's quite obviously legendary, and insisting on medical records and the like is probably going a bit too far. The question is whether or not such urban legend type material fits within the bounds of Wikipedia's mission. On that matter, I'm not at all sure: I have conflicted opinions. If we were to delete everything that was probably made up, we'd have to get rid of everything we have on aliens and other "paranormal" stuff, and probably cut a fairly large chunk out of our religion articles too. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The urban legend may not have left as big a footprint as say the Loch Ness Monster, at least not Yeti, but it's been noticed by the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences.[1]. Along with all the mentions Tom Morris has found, that should be plenty. Besides, we have all sorts of articles about two-faced politicians. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It seems to have been noticed by JHMAS as notably lacking sources. Just saying...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has no good contemporary sources isn't reason for deletion, because Wikipedia can still cover mythological/folkloric topics as long as the legend has been discussed in detail. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. I wasn't making an argument for deletion, just noting that it's ironic that the JHMAS couldn't find any sources either.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— I get a 403 forbidden error from the supposed picture link of him up there. Maybe it's just me?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might be folklore, might be a real person, probably somewhere in between. The article actually does a decent job of clarifying this. Notability isn't in doubt, someone still being widely discussed after more than a century is notable enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Per Tom Morris. Also, I think that anything that Tom Waits wrote a song about is de facto notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps move to Edward Mordake - Wikipedia verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. That's it. All this twisting and turing about whether the topic is true is irrevant. The article has reliable sources, people reading and editing the article can check that information comes from the associated reliable source. Another reliable source for the article is Richmond Times Dispatch September 29, 2007. There's enough reliable source content for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source! I'm all ready to start an Edward Mordrake in popular culture article!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you search for his last name spelled as Mordake, there's more information:Orlando Sentinel January 29, 1999, Diario El Pais February 22, 2001, and Southern Review June 2001 -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. True or false, it has its place in folklore and legends. Be guided by Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm and Aesop.--Zananiri (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.