Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/23 Enigma


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

23 Enigma

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

References are dead links, links to fiction and primary sources. Article is largely in-universe. Article is also a strong example of WP:NONSENSE and WP:CB. Justification for removing prod "it's old" invalid. Simonm223 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I don't disagree with much of what Simonm223 says, but anyone who's read the Illuminatus! Trilogy has encountered this "phenomenon", and it features in some works of William S. Burroughs. From these sources it's spread into a number of TV shows, movies, musical works, etc., so I'd argue it's widespread enough to merit an article. The lack of secondary sourcing is a problem, of course. This article in the Fortean Times discusses the concept, but it's by Robert Anton Wilson, one of its originators, so I don't know if that's a primary or a secondary source. This CNN review of the Jim Carrey movie The Number 23 mentions the "so-called 23 enigma" in passing. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It may be an idea used in a notable fiction book but that does not in and of itself constitute notability for the concept that there is something unnatural about the number 23. I would be satisfied by the proposal to redirect to William S. Burroughs or alternately to redirect to the Illuminatus! Trilogy as this would resolve the WP:CB and in-universe concerns I have with this current article.Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But there is no singular source in Illuminatus, numerologists have documented fascinations with the number 23 for centuries. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Strong keep for the reasons above. The findsources template at the top of the AfD shows hundreds of potential sources beyond what exists now, some on works that are 400 years old. It is a recurring theme in both fiction, numerology, and modern mysticism (and if you believe the numerologists, mystics, and conspiracy nuts, the fascination with the number 23 goes back centuries, even millenia). It is an obvious thing to anyone around discordian/subgenius/RAW/WSB, even Leary and McKenna played 23 up a few times. It was even the basis for a movie, The Number 23, a few years back, but of course it got Hollywoodized to the point it had no resemblance to subculture meme 23 represents, and therefore lacked its own purpose to exist.  And, the basis for a German movie as well, 23 (film).  It certainly is no merge candidate, because it appears independently from multiple disconnected sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Merge to 23 (number) or keep (a distant second choice). The thing did penetrate mass culture although not as deep as other crackpot stuff. NVO (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to 23 (number). Notability is established to justify its own article.  Merging to the main article on 23 and giving it a prominent place there might be even better.  That the topic itself is "nonsense" and "crackpot" is not a reason to delete the article. (Ironic that the nominator is named Simonm 223.) Borock (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment And there is nothing unnatural about the number. 23 is no more special than 22 or 24. It just happens to be my birthday.Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Garbage idea with highly unimpressive and/or missing sources. But the busy edit history suggests that the topic is worth having an article about. I think the title is very loaded though. The old title [ 23 (numerology)] seems more appropriate. • Anakin (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keepthis is an underground idea of some notability. article needs improvement of course. I would prefer that data on numerals not related to their mathematical properties not be included in number articles, as i think is policy. obviously a hatlink or see also is fine.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep or redirect to idea's founder. Well referenced article. Ikip (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with cleanup. There's a movie based around it and references in major books. We need to make sure that it isn't used to promote the  belief, but an article on it is reasonable. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 01:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong fnord. Notable and referenced, if a bit silly.  Fnord.  Skinwalker (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems notable and well enough sourced to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - to 23 (number). Or Keep is fine too.  It's notable enough to be commemorated in (and inspire) multiple books and films, and it's something I would have expected to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia.
 * 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.