Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11/11/11


 * 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   redirect to November 11. Tone 21:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

11/11/11

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:RS and I don't think there are other dates that have an article. I'm sure the number sequence is aesthetically pleasing, but what about 11/11/10? No article for that, and if it did, most the events listed in this article would happen (or did) would appear there, but be redundant if brought to a newer date? Phearson (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Might be a vilation of WP:CRYSTAL, but this day might gain notability as the date nears or passes based on what peculiar things occur.  Also, is there any precedent on wikipedia for other such novelty dates?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 07:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not a notable date at this time, the article is mostly about 11 November in general.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect to November 11. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge in to November 11 to save the work. Probably not worth redirecting to November 11.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added some reliable sources. These demonstrate that the date is not only notable now but has been in the past too. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to November 11. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect to November 11. Not notable enough for a standalone article. First Light (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The New York Times article linked to gives coverage of this event from 11/11/1911 and states it won't happen again until the distant year 2011 a century away. It is quite reasonable to assume other newspapers mentioned this as well.   D r e a m Focus  12:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Snotty Wong   chat 18:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect to either November 11 or 2011. Silly number coincidences are not notable enough for their own articles.  Should we also have articles for 1/1/01, 2/2/02, 3/3/03 ... 12/12/12?  How about 1/2/03, 2/3/04, 3/4/05 ... 12/13/14?  In almost exactly 34 years, we'll even be able to celebrate 1/23/45.  Note that 10/10/10 is currently a redirect to 2010.  Snotty Wong   chat 18:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a redirect because there was never an article there, someone just put it there. Nothing to do with this.  And articles exist or don't based on having reliable sources mention them, which this does have.  Whether you personally like an article or its subject, is totally irrelevant.   D r e a m Focus  13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I only noted the 10/10/10 redirect to show that it might be more consistent to redirect this article to 2010 instead of November 11, should the consensus be to redirect. And my rationale for redirecting has nothing to do with whether I personally like the article.  The sources in this article are not exactly compelling.  The first source is from a miniscule 2-paragraph blurb newspaper article from 100 years ago, which lets us know that 11/11/11 only happens once every hundred years, and not much more.  The second source is an article about an upcoming movie that is going to be titled "11 11 11".  That would be a great source for an article on that movie.  If these are the best sources that can be located, then this article is in trouble.  Snotty Wong   spill the beans 17:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These are not necessarily the best sources - they are just what I found in a minute or so of skimming. I make another quick skim and I find that mainstream media have now spotted that, to be born on 11/11/11, a baby should be conceived on Valentine's Day.  See ABC, for example.  Note also that this article gives lots of reasons why 11/11/11 is a particulalrly good date to be born.  I had no idea of this before I looked, not did I know about the movie until I looked.  In such cases, we cannot know how much more can be made of the topic without a thorough and comprehensive search.  If you have not made such a search then your carping is unhelpful as it is not informed.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to November 11, until and unless more reliable sources can be found to demonstrate notability for this particular date. I've done some searching, but unfortunately the nature of the title format brings up mostly false positives. Merging to November 11 would also make sense, except (at this point) there's not much to merge that's not already in the target article. I'm open to changing my !vote if good reliable sources are found and added to the article. 28bytes (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to November 11. There is only one sentence that says anything unique about the specific day, and that is only that it happens every 100 years. The rest just summarizes what happens every year. I'd suggest redirecting to November 11, but I can see the rationale behind redirecting to 2011 instead, so I'll hold off on that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: no indication that the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the eleventh year has any particular notability (and Armistice Day, etc, already have their own articles, and don't give any particular significance to eleventh year). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.