Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11 phenomenon


 * 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 No consensus. Renaming may be appropriate; please discuss at Talk:11:11 phenomenon. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:52Z 

11:11 phenomenon

 * — (View AfD)

I'm nominating this material because I think that it is original research. The exact same material was added to the 11:11 article a day or two ago, and I removed it for the same reason. I offered to discuss my reasoning with the editor who created it, to see if we could reach a consensus, but no reply came. So I am bringing it to afd, to reach consensus. The original 11:11 article is in the state it is in, because of several afd's also. Basically my reasons are as follows:
 * 1) The use of the word "phenomenon" in the title and throughout the article is inaccurate and misleading. What this article purports to describe is a belief held by some people that there exists a causal relationship between the number 1111 or the time of day 11:11 am or pm and events in the world.  For this to belief to be even considered a phenomenon, we would have to include material from reputable journals in which investigators were performing experiments to determine whether or not the relationship exists and its nature.  No such sources were cited in this article to lend creedence to this causal relationship.


 * I provided no sources because there are none. I don't believe that there is a link between the number 11:11 and anything in nature.  What I have observed (and provided many cites for) is that many people *do* believe that there is something special about 11:11, many notable people have claimed as such, and thus the claim itself has become notable enough to warrant it's inclusion.  I noticed you deleted the list to songs and albums entitled 11:11, did you do that because you honestly believe it's some big cosmic coincidence that people are entitling these things "11:11".  Wouldn't that be funny if you did?  Basically you'd be admitting to the fact that YOU see 11:11 everywhere!
 * That does not necessarily follow. I deleted the list because it already existed on 11:11 and I saw no reason to include it in this related article.  My personal beliefs about numerology, numbers or this number in particular are not relevant to the discussion.  As you say, "I have observed..." but you have not published your observations in a reputable source, and that's one of the reasons why I think this is original research.TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That there is a seperate list on a seperate article does not preclude the information from being included in this article. (Of course I think the articles should be outright merged!) I put the list in in an unbiased manner by using a qualifying word "may".  I don't think it is unfair to allow the reader to at least speculate that there is a connection between more than eight songs, albums, and movies named "11:11" and this (perhaps totally unrelated thing) people just happen to know as "11:11".  I don't see how you can disallow the information to co-mingle on the same page unless you honestly believe that there isn't a reasonable chance the two might be related.  If there is such a chance then I think we have a responsibility to craft and article that at least presents that information together. -- GIR 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not like the usage of the word "phenomenon", and I am quite open to the idea of that part of the article being changed. In fact I think this content should simply be included in the 11:11 article.  I see no point in having two articles since the "phenomenon" or whatever you want to call it is almost always simply refered to as "11:11".  Instead of deleting the content outright maybe you could take a moment to edit the content to make it better.  -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again why I don't work to improve this article is not relevant to this discussion. However, I will simply say that I don't because this is not an issue of quality but whether or not the material is original research.  If I can I try to help with articles that I feel I can improve, but I feel no obligation to improve articles that are o.r since WP:NOR is one of the pillars of wikipedia.  I have endeavored to make it very clear that is my only reason for nominating this article.  I outlined all these reasons simply to make my reasoning clear and impersonal.TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The article claims that George Noory popularized this belief. Since popularize can mean either to make popular, or to explain in a simple manner, the article needs to cite sources and expand and clarify the statement.  The only other statement regarding Noory, is that some people appeared on his show, to discuss their belief.  There are 3 links given as references for that.  2 are brief blurbs that do not mention a specific person or persons.  The third is a brief announcement about an upcoming show.  The material on that does not really explain the person's beliefs.  It's my opinion that nothing in the article supports the claim about Noory, so the claim is original research.


 * My appologies. The content actually being cited is the radio programme itself.  The interviews on the show are quite long and in-depth, usually about three hours long.  If the citation needs to be done differently to refelct that it is the content of the program itself, and not the website being linked to, then so be it.  I just figured it was obvious in this case.  -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What seems obvious to me is that Noory has had one or two people on his show to talk about their beliefs. To me, this does not support the claim that he "popularized" the belief.  I need to see more links, from someone other than noory before I can understand how this conclusion was arrived at.TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it still seems like a lot to me, considering the plethora of other subjects that are given a three-hour spotlight on this or that night. I mean if it were two articles in the Washington Post, those would be okay to cite.  But being featured on a radio show that is listened to more people than any other in that time slot, that doesn't rank.  I wouldn't argue that the source is reputable, but I do believe the source is quite notable and that in turn makes the subject notable, and I believe that is enough to warrant it's inclusion in wikipedia.  -- GIR 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Another sentence reads "Another common claim...". This sentence is another assertion that is not supported by anything else in the article. The sentence then points to a self published website (the link is broken) that is very confusing and simply seems to represent one person's belief.  Since the website appears self-published and has probably not been peer reviewed or fact checked, it probably does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for reputable sources.  It's the equivalent of adding the following line to Black cat.  "Joe somebody, from Anywhere, USA, believes that black cats bring bad luck, and said so on his website.


 * I can see your point on this and I would not protest if this information were removed. -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) There is a claim of a movie coming out in 2009, but no source is given.


 * I will add a link to the imdb listing. -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. This would make a good addition to the disambiguation page.TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Uri Geller seems to be used as some sort of expert on the subject. Although why Uri Geller is considered an expert on what people do and do not believe regarding 11:11 is not made clear. I visited this link, and I believe the statement is incorrect.  The only thing Uri Geller says about September 11 is "I believe that those who died on September 11th did not die in vain."  The sentence is an inaccurate representation (and confusing) of the material on that page.


 * Uri Geller is a notable person making an extraordinary claim. That he is notable doesn't make him an expert, obviously, but it does give creedence that the belief in "11:11" is itself becoming more notable.  -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do see your point. I do think that the sentence in the article, did not summarize the material accurately, but that's just my opinion (as is everything else I have expressed).TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The use of the word skeptic in the last line is both non neutral and misleading. Since the article is primarily talking about a belief that people might share, then there are only people who believe and people who don't.  Only in the context of discussing a theory that has been proposed and/or tested is the word skeptic meaningful.  So the last line only really describes one possible reason why some people might not believe, and ignores all the other reasons why people might not believe.


 * "Eleven Eleven" is without a doubt a theory that has been proposed many times by some fairly notable people, but it has never been tested (how could it be?). I think the word "skeptic" can be used in this case, and if not then I invite you to change it.  And why don't you add more reasons people don't believe instead of complaining about the lack of reasons?  That an article is missing some information doesn't make it a candidate for deletion, it simply makes it a stub.  This section is something I would like to expand, and at the time I had intended to include a link to comment James Randi had made on the subject but at the time I could not find that information.  -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the rub for me. There is a difference between belief and theory.  I think that editors in an encyclopedia should be very careful about their wording.  To me, a theory is an explanation that I develop about a phenomenon that I can observe, repeat and reproduce.  I develop a theory, to explain why the phenomenon that I observed happened the way it did.  A theory is then something that I can design tests to disprove.  If I can disprove my theory, I go onto another one.  A belief is slightly different.  A belief is an explanation for a phenomenon that I (or anyone else) might never have actually observed but I may consider to be within the realm of possibility.  As an example, let's say I chose a large sample of songs from all of the songs ever written.  I then analyzed those songs to determine the frequency with which those lyrics or titles included a number or numbers.  Further suppose that as a result of my calculations I concluded that the number 1111 occurred more frequently than any other number to such an extent that made it statistically abnormal.  Now I've observed something.  I now develope theories to explain it.  I could develop theories that would be impossible to test (cosmic rays caused the anomaly) to relatively easy to test (my sample was biased).  My long point, I gathered data, and then developed theories.  As an example of a belief, as a kid I believed in the Loch Ness monster.  I had never seen it, never been to Scotland, never met anyone who had encountered the creature. The only "evidence" I had were fuzzy photographs and stories that would now be called urban legends.  I still held out the possibility that the lake might contain a creature.  My belief was not a theory. If you read this far, good for you.TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For all of the above reasons, I believe that this article should be deleted is not ready for the article namespace. TheRingess 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Plenty of paranormal concepts have articles. This article needs a serious rework for NPOV, but it is covered and discussed enough outside WP to be notable IMO.  I seem to remember seeing a policy or guideline on handling paranormal topics somewhere.  Does anyone know where it is? Chovain 07:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, miserable number of google hits.This theory merits a mention on the Uri Geller article, but we can't have an article on every single thing he believes.--Nydas (Talk) 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who called it "phenomenon", not everyone uses the word "phenomenon" when talking about 11:11, and thus your search should reflect as much. Considering that, your search resulted in quite a lot of hits! -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Uri Geller - non notable enogh to have its own article.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not merge to Uri Geller, they are only tangentially related --Dmz5 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete it's not like it's 2112, after all. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article clearly needs a lot of work, but I think it's noteworthy how many people have some belief in this. For example, last year there was a local controversy in Knoxville, Tennessee when the area manager for Knology wrote some letters to the editor about his beliefs on the subject, which eventually resulted in an interview with him by a Knoxville News Sentinel columnist (the original seems to be broken on the knoxnews.com website, but that's a copy of it), and finally his being fired by Knology for the negative publicity.  I've found other non-local websites (on conspiracy theories, freedom of speech, religion, etc.) that picked up on this ([www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520667/posts] and, in addition to the above site with the copy of the interview).  Also, a quick google for 11:11 turned up a number of pages devoted to the phenomenon: , , , , .  All that, plus the long page by Uri Geller on the subject and the mentions on Coast to Coast (both prime sources for those inclined to such beliefs), makes me think that this is at least as significant as a lot of other paranormal theories we have pages for.  (No, I'm not a conspiracy type myself, and I think this is probably is a case of confirmation bias, but it's something that seems sufficiently notable to warrant a page.) Pinball22 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I took a brief look at the links regarding this topic, they all seem to me to be self-published websites. I don't think that they would meet wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources.  Regarding controversis, if there has been a well publicized controversy, in reputable sources, regarding someone's belief in this synchronicity, then yes, that might make a notable article.   Once again, Uri Geller seems only tangentially related to this topic.  His views on it are only his own.  I think the current material in this article mischaracterizes his statements and belief.  I scanned the material on his website and believe that the one line summary presented here is inaccurate, confusing and misleading.  It might be better to simply have a list of famous people who share this belief.  Relevant links that might be useful for this article would be ones that supply information on when/where the beliefs originated; how widespread they are; different variations on the beliefs, etc.  In which case, the article might be better titled "Beliefs regarding 1111".  My main point, is that this article is non neutral and inaccurate in that it is presenting people's beliefs as actual verified facts. TheRingess 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I just meant the websites to be evidence that there are a fair number of people who believe it, not reliable sources for evidence of its truth. I envision the article as a description of the idea, with, as you said, explanations about its history, variations on the idea, and notable believers, just like any article about a non-provable concept.  (Links to such sites are probably thus relevant, not as sources for the factuality of the concept, but as examples of the belief in it -- the Catholicism article has a link to the Vatican's web page, but obviously the article doesn't attempt to present Papal infallibility as a fact).  Clearly the 11:11 article is in need of a lot of work to make it an objective description of the concept and beliefs on the subject, but I think much of what's discussed is relevant (for example, the fact that Uri Geller has a page about it is significant, since he's famous because of his belief in paranormal phenomena), just in need of being expanded, better presented, and documented.  This is an AfD discussion, though, so the important question is not whether the current article is good, but whether there should be an article about this in the Wikipedia; based on the reasons I originally listed, I think there definitely should be, though clearly it should be tagged for cleanup. Pinball22 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the reply. I'm not convinced that a few self published websites indicate that a fair number of people believe in it, that's an assertion that needs to be addressed.  I also am not sure I agree that an afd has to be concerned with whether or not a topic should or should not exist on Wikipedia.  That kind of discussion seems more appropriate on the pages that deal with requests for article. But I could be wrong, if you know of any policy discussions that would help make it clearer to me, please feel free to leave the links here or on my talk page.  The current debate is about this article.  According to the criteria for deletion, original research is a valid criteria for deletion.  One of the problems I see, is that if the article remains, and interested editors place the appropriate citation and cleanup tags on it, there is no guarantees that the article will actually be cleaned up.  Unless, we are going to place the burden of cleanup on the editors placing the tags, which is ultimately unworkable.  Take a look at the backlog of all articles needing wikifying or cleanup.  I see nothing wrong with deleting the article as is and if the contributing editor wishes, they can create an article in their user space, clean it up, get help with it.  Then when they believe that it satisfies all criteria for inclusion, they can transfer it to the article namespace.  This seems to be accepted procedure.TheRingess 19:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind about policy links, I've gone ahead and asked on Articles for deletion. I really want to know if this is a policy.  I wasn't aware of it before, and if it is policy, then I'll keep it in mind in future discussions.TheRingess 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable But not because it is OR--it certainly is not. Assembling mentions from a few websites is not research. Many WP articles are appropriately done that way. OR would be if the editor had set out to determine if the phenomenon does in fact exist and published the results here. DGG 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, not to sound too argumentative, but after reading your comment I decided to take a look at WP:OR again. I found the following statement:"Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". It's simply my opinion that statements like: "George Noory popularized this belief" or "Another common claim..." represent unpublished analyses.   In the second phrase, that documents one person's claim the thing that makes it original research is the word common. From the weblink we know the person is a believer, but how are we to determine that amongst all of the believers his viewpoint is common. Perhaps, even amongst it's adherents, this person is considered to be "out there" so to speak. Take away the word "common" and the editor is simply giving one person's opinion, without establishing the notability of that opinion.  Also to talk about what "skeptics" might or might not believe, without mentioning who they are and where their viewpoints were published represent unpublished arguments.  It's just my opinion, but those statements seem to me to fit the definition of original research.  Also to call something a "phenomenon" is to inherently imply that it is something that has been observed, studied and researched.TheRingess 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * very weak keep. Interesting that 23 should be cited as a similar phenomenon byut not the old cricketer's stand-by of the Nelson (111). Grutness...wha?  00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with 11:11, I don't think the "phenomenon" exists, and as such the phenomenon will never be proven to exist. But I do feel that there is a popular belief in the phenomenon, and that is the *only* thing I sought out to prove in the article.  Edit: whoops I forgot to sign my vote! sorry!  -- GIR 05:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)  Let me add a postscript after thinking about this for a while, please give this article another chance, TheRingess.  I looked over your history with this subject and I can see why you killed some of the older articles, they really were rubbish and biased towards one side.  I really do want to present this issue in an un-biased fashion, but I can not do that if the article is killed before the article is improved by other people, one does not step on a seedling because it bears no fruit.  References to obscure (but notable) things take time to collect and accumilate.  An article on 11:11 is not to be written in a few days or even a few years.  My motivation for writing the article in first place is revealed in the last sentence of the article.  As a skeptic, I think it is important to recognize the *facts* of things like this, and there aren't that many facts to be had in a case like 11:11, as so you have a pretty short article, but you have an article nonetheless and those seeking information on the subject are thus better informed on the reality of the subject.  Wikipedia is an excellent place for stuff to filter down and distill in to a good chunk of useful information, but sometime that takes time, but you at least have to give it time.  In the long run, looking at the history of the article, that people are going to keep making new articles about 11:11 not realising someone else already had. So which is easier?  To kill it each time? or to simply maintain a good article on the subject?  Anyway, that's all I want to do, write a good article *with* my fellow wikipedians.  So, TheRingess, you seem like a very good writer, having read your point-by-point reasons for killing this article, why don't you put some of that talent to improving the article?  I mean I don't want to have any bad blood with you since we basically agree on the nature of this "phenomenon" ;)  -- GIR 05:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment' No problemo, there was never any bad blood, nor was this ever personal.  You are correct, some things take time.  This is why many editors create subpages in their user space.  They work on them there until they are satisfied that their work will satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.  They move them into the article namespace.  That's a good way to avoid these types of discussions and a good way to avoid having fellow editors question the content, and stick cleanup tags, or wikify tags, or source tags in the article.  You can of course clean it up even while this discussion goes on.TheRingess 06:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or rewrite and merge. I was the editor who recreated 11:11 article (its third recreate, I believe) before it was redirected and turned into a disambiguation page. As such, I have read several websites on the so-called "phoenomenon", and while the numerous websites, songs, and other media which reference 11:11 appear to reinforce its validity as a "phoenomenon" (or at least a common experience), I have never found any credible second-hand sources that have discussed the issue. Therefore, I believe that TheRingess is correct in labelling the current article original research. However, I also feel that there is something there that deserves an article - there just aren't enough credible sources there to verify it. Once there are, I would be willing to help improve/work on the article. - ryan  d  13:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite and move to a more appropriate title. Sources appear to have been found! - ryan  d  12:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Remember that simply reading something and recounting what it says without opinion isn't OR (check WP:OR). In researching a little more about this, it seems that there are several different theories people have as to the meaning of noticing 11:11, including that it's a sign for  lightworkers or a message from the Midwayers of The Urantia Book, both things we already have articles about (in the case of the Urantia book, multiple extensive articles).  There are also at least two books specifically about 11:11 for sale on Amazon:  and .    Also notable, I think, is that all but two of the first page of ghits are separate sites devoted to this idea (the other two are the Wikipedia page for November 11th and the IMDB page for the movie 11:11).  A search for "John Gilmore" Knology yields several pages of articles about his firing for talking about his beliefs (which, in his case, involve the Illuminati, another topic we have many pages about).  It seems to me that this is significant, if for no other reason than its relation to so many different popular paranormal topics.  If you want to rename this page to something like "Beliefs about 11:11", or if someone wants to take it into their userspace and work on it based on this information, that's fine, but I'd really like to see it stay as an article to inspire group collaboration. Pinball22 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that we are in basic agreement on many points. I do understand that reading something and recounting it is not OR.  One of the basic pillars of Wikipedia is that material added can only be something an editor read in a reputable source.  So instead of just saying "Fails WP:NOR" I listed the specific material that I felt was not already published somewhere. (The most notable statement that I believe represents OR is the claim that Noory popularized the phenomenon. I believe that the links cited do not make this claim.  Since no source was provided, and a brief search on google turned up no sources for that claim, I feel that it does represent OR).  One other simple example was to classify one person's viewpoint as common.  Since the beliefs have not been listed, nor clearly defined, it is difficult to establish from the context of the article, whether this person's belief is common, or merely their own.  Don't get me started again on why the word phenomenon is inappropriate for this article.  To me, the issue in this discussion has never been about whether or not an article about this number should exist.  That is simply way beyond the scope of this discussion.  The results of any afd do not seem to be permanently binding (nor should they be). It does seem to be a common occurrence on Wikipedia, that as a result of an afd, an article is deleted and interested editors take up its cause, rewrite it to address the concerns expressed in the discussion and then once again move the article into the article namespace.  (Excuse me if I am stating the obvious).  I have also noticed that articles are often edited while a discussion is ongoing, and as a result of those edits, some editors will change their opinions.  I'm actually wondering if we as a community ought to start actively encouraging fellow editors to create articles in their user space, seek peer reviews, and then when ready, put them in article namespace.  It's just my observation (hence my own original research) that a lot of articles in the namespace are "rough drafts".  I think that in the future when I participate in discussions, I'm going to stop using the words keep and delete and replace them with ready and not ready.  I agree that "Beliefs about 11:11" is a much better title.  Another title might be "11:11 (numerology)".TheRingess 16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, this is really getting more involved than I think is necessary, but there are a couple of important points of Wiki-philosophy here.  You write, "One of the basic pillars of Wikipedia is that material added can only be something an editor read in a reputable source."  This is a more complicated statement than it appears, and goes to the heart of the point I'm trying to make.  Let's go back to your black cat example, just for simplicity.  There's a drastic difference between the two statements "There is someone who believes that black cats bring bad luck" and "Black cats bring bad luck."  For the first, a webpage that says "I'm Joe, and I think black cats bring bad luck" is a a perfectly valid source.  It shows that such a person exists, in a way that is verifiable by anyone who reads the primary source, as mentioned in WP:OR. The same webpage, though, is not a valid source for the second statement, since the fact in question in that statement isn't Joe's belief, but a fact about the actual nature of cats and luck, for which Joe isn't known as a reliable source.  I think you probably understand, and agree with, this point, but I wanted to be sure that we're on the same page.  I agree wholeheartedly that, with the evidence given, the claims that George Noory popularized (in any sense) this concept, or that belief in it is widespread, have not been sufficiently supported.  (Support for the second is what I've been trying to provide in my previous posts.)  In their current form, these claims may represent original research, in the sense of creating synthesis or opinion from primary sources.  However, since they may also simply be inadequately referenced, I don't think claiming use of OR as a basis for an AfD is appropriate.  I think the intent (other Wikipedians, feel free to argue) of the listing of OR as a potential reason to delete an article is meant for not this possibly-OR grey area, but for, as is described in WP:OR, egregious OR of the "here is my new theory of gravitation based on the motion of hamsters" type.  Hopefully, in cases like this one, the appropriate action is to improve the article, find a basis for any apparent OR, and remove anything that can't be substantiated.  If you feel some of the current claims are too vague to remain standing, be bold and remove them.  Cut the article down to a stub, put the disputed bits on the talk page, tag for cleanup, and let the Wiki-magic work.  Based on something else you've said, I'm inclined to think you agree, in principle, but perhaps are using the wrong means to the end: "To me, the issue in this discussion has never been about whether or not an article about this number should exist. That is simply way beyond the scope of this discussion." Unfortunately, by creating an AfD, the existence of the article is exactly what you've opened a debate about. No, the results of an AfD are generally not permanently binding, but a delete result will certainly cast a shadow on any future version of the article that may be hard to escape.  For that reason, I find leaving a stub more appropriate than deletion in any case where people believe a subject may be sufficiently notable for an article, even if the current article is not up to par.  In addition, I think people are much more likely to work on a stub article they find than to simply create a new article, so deletion may make it less likely that the article will exist again.  As for the idea that articles should be kept in userspace until they meet some standard, that seems to me to go against the entire point of a wiki, which is collaboration.  Whether there should be separate levels of "doneness" is of course a much bigger question, but I believe collaborative effort needs to be available at all levels to make articles the best they can be, and in the current Wikipedia model, that means putting them out in the general space as soon as possible.  Sorry for the length of this post, and no, I don't think this article is so vital to the Wikipedia that the world will end if it's gone (I do think, based on the research I've done, that it's sufficiently notable, though), but I think the ideas of how things should work that are at question here are pretty important.  -- Pinball
 * Comment Thanks for giving a well thought out and courteous response to my thoughts.  Yes, we are in agreement on many points.  Including that I may have used the wrong means to an end.  Now that I look at thoughts regarding notability here; I used inadequate language.  I think now that I misunderstood your comments regarding notability.  What I really meant to express is that an afd should never be used to determine whether or not a subject (as opposed to an article) is notable enough to belong to wikipedia.  This is a good example, a well researched article, with reputable sources, that fits all of the criteria for inclusion, deserves to exist, simply because this is Wikipedia.  The argument should never be based upon "how far out" we think a belief or theory is.  I do not agree that this process makes it less likely that the article will exist again.  But I suppose we simple should agree to disagree.  It seems that I misunderstood your original comments.  Regarding doneness, it's simply my opinion that a valid process for creating an article is: 1) create the article in your user namespace 2) When you are satisfied (or even before), seek out fellow editors who share your interest (project pages are a great place to start) 3) request peer reviews (it's a good idea to actively seek out reviews rather than wait for someone to volunteer) 4) collaborate and repeat the steps 5) move to article namespace.  I am not suggesting that this is the way we have to do things, or the way we should do things, I am simply expressing my own opinion (and this might not be the appropriate place to do so) based on my own OR.  I believe that one underlying assumption of the Wikipedia model is that some editors will always step forward to improve an article.  I'm not convinced that this is the case, or that it is even a workable assumption.   Finally, it boils down to asking editors to actively seek out collaboration, rather than waiting for it to happen.  (Take a look at the list of all articles needing wikification.   The backlog seems quite large to me).  Nor am I suggesting that we actively discourage editors from adding articles to article namespace first and then seeking collaboration.  To me, that would be completely against Wiki philosophy.  My points are probably better suited for a policy discussion page, or just a general philosophical discussion page, so I apologize for making this discussion lengthier than necessary. If you wish to discuss this further, at this point, our talk pages might be more appropriate venues.  Take care.TheRingess 18:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to go with Pinball on this one, I say skip to step 5. and get everything out in the open fropm the get-go. There are far too many people who have esoteric knowledge locked up in their head, and when they go and search for something and they find it on wikipedia, they are much more likely share their bit of knowledge with us if they are invited to simply edit an open wikipedia article, rather than some page that is filed away under some user's page.  The process you describe relies far too much on the fellow wikipedians.  The birth of a new article should be out in the open for everyone to see, the more people that see it, the more people will contribute *good* information to it.  This is the whole point of having a stub! Again, Pinball is right on the money with so much of what he said, I'm quite glad really, he said so much of what I want to say, and in such a great way, I don't have to say it, so I can go watch that episode of Torchwood I've been saving up ;)  -- GIR 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. sorry I messed up the formatting up top, I didn't notice until now I had turned all the numbers in your numbered lists in to 1's, my god, I see 1111 everywhere!!! ;) just kiddin'
 * I edited the article to remove all claims that I felt were at once speculative and not supported by the sources cited. I did not reinstate the list of songs.  It is now basically a stub. If it survives, then it should be renamed to "Beliefs about 11:11"  or "1111 (numerology)".  Take care.  Now I can go back to catching up on my backlog of "The Office" episodes.  So now we have a stub with statements that with a few minor exceptions are fully supported by the sources cited.TheRingess 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you've been editing like a madman!!! Now you are getting in to the spirit! I've been working on the article too, In fact I started editing about the same time you did, only I've been doing it in notepad so I didn't notice your edits, I'll work on combining what I've got done in to the article.  Weird though, I just finished catching up on my backlog of The Office episodes too,  The Christmas episode was quite good.  -- GIR 08:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Off topic I nearly died laughing during the christmas episode. The scenes in the japanese restaurant were priceless.TheRingess 09:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Gir, thanks for your nice comments (I'm a she, not a he, BTW), and TheRingess, thanks for the friendly debate and all the work you've done on this article since this started! Pinball22 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: It's not WP:OR as it's a collection of opinions and hypothesis expressed by guests on Coast to Coast (which has already been established as an acceptable source of fringe opinions in regards to the paranormal because of the shows popularity and audience reach). HOWEVER, the topic isn't notable, and represents a collection of similar fringe ideas rather than a single fringe ideas. perfectblue 08:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment actually it's not OR anymore, my contention was that it was; at the start of this rather lengthy discussion.TheRingess 09:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename, to something like "11:11 beliefs". ("11:11 superstition" would be more accurate, but I'll grit my teeth and apply NPOV even to stuff that makes palmistry look mainstream.) JamesMLane t c 19:06, 24 December 2006 (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.