Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coincidences and synchronicities related to September 11, 2001 attacks


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Coincidences and synchronicities related to September 11, 2001 attacks
Article treads that uneasy borderline between Original research and Complete bollocks. Grutness...wha?  12:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above. Arundhati bakshi 13:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Probably a POV fork too. Stifle 13:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and POV. Paul Carpenter 13:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, POV. --Ter e nce Ong 13:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ruby 14:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete -- Darwin Tallhouse 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this stub, and you would have to have been paying no attention to the aftermath of 9/11 to have failed to have encountered widespread reports of "coincidences" or "synchronicities" surrounding the events of that day. Bear in mind that those two words are often used as synonyms for one another but they carry opposite implications -- a "coincidence" is considered to be pure happenstance, with no implied actual connection between events that are coinciding; "synchronicity" on the other hand implies that there may be an actual connection. The distinction is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm not suggesting that any perceived connection is verifiably so.

The bottom line is this: Coincidences surrounding 9/11 have been widely noted and have had a presence and impact culturally at the very least.

My piece IS A STUB -- I defined the topic and provided two categorically different examples, and that is what they are -- examples only. This is followed by an invitation to add to these examples. I do think the quality of the examples added would need to be monitored, but the topic itself is legitimate AS a topic -- I make no claims, and the article makes no claims, as to the significance of any coincidences described or discussed.

Thanks for your time. I respectfuly ask you, and everyone else who has already voted, to reconsider your vote.

Darwin Tallhouse 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per author's explanation above. You violated WP:NOR.   ikkyu2  ( talk ) 17:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; Yes, obvious delete now after author's admission above. Badgerpatrol 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOR and suggest the author follow that link and read it.--Isotope23 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My main point is this: "Coincidences surrounding 9/11 have been widely noted and have had a presence and impact culturally at the very least." "Widely noted" means a cultural phenomenon is occurring and to that extent is an "object" in the world and hence worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia that purports to cover objects in the world.

I am new to the site, and have only just now skimmed the policy statement, which seems sensible and I wish to support it. It may be the article should be revised in light of it. But it's not a "pet theory" of mine, merely a fact of cultural life in the time since 9/11, one that deserves to be documented accurately and in an unbiased manner.

Darwin Tallhouse 17:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but for something to be encyclopedic, it needs to be supported by a verifiable, independent source. What I mean by that is there needs to be an exterior website, scientific journal, etc that has already covered this topic (in the case of your comments above, the supposed cultural phenomenon of "Coincidences or Synchornicities surrounding 9/11").  Generally speaking, message boards, blogs, and personal websites are not seen as a verifable, neutral source.  For even a rewritten article on this topic to exist here and not be subjected to an AfD, you will need to demonstrate that a credible source has already documented this as a cultural phenomenon.  WP:V will help you understand the criteria.  --Isotope23 18:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Darwin, I appreciate your openness and willingess to discuss. What Isotope23 just said. To give an example, when one person notices the Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences, it doesn't get an article.  After it's been discussed in magazines and mentioned in books about the two presidents and been made the subject of a Father Guido Sarducci comedy special, then it gets an article. Thatcher131 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Isotope23, Thatcher131, thank you for your sensible comments. Thatcher131, your point on Lincoln/Kennedy coincidences is apt, and I certainly agree with you. I believe that the verification you request can be provided; clearly, though, I should have done more research before posting. I will endeavor to track down the qualtiy of verification required. How long can you give me? Or should my article be taken down in the interim? Just for starters, though, anyone googling "9/11 coincidences" will certainly get an eyeful, if not a laugh! Best Wishes, Darwin Tallhouse 19:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the AfD process takes about a week, however by the end of that time many fewer people are paying attention and it would be hard to change the delete consensus that has developed. Also, if the article is deleted via the AfD process and you put it up again later, it may be nominated for speedy deletion.  If I were you (and I was, when I first joined) I would swallow my pride, blank the page, and tag it yourself for speedy deletion.  (Unfortunately since other people have edited it you can't use G7 only author, you have to use G1 patent nonsense.)   You can then set up the article on your own user page and work on it without interference until you've got it in a more encylopedic format, then put it up again in the main space.  If you speedied your own first attempt then your second attempt should get a fair hearing based on its new content. Thatcher131 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, there is already a perfectly good article at 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I would like to voluntarily take down my article; what would be the best way to do that? Darwin Tallhouse 13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Add to the top of the article Paul Carpenter 15:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The speedy deletion message has been inserted and I approve of the speedy deletion. Darwin Tallhouse 18:36, 17 February 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.