Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy (second nomination)


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy
I change my nomination to reflect the recent rewrite of this article. I believe the article should no longer be considered for deletion. It should however be renamed/moved as to reflect the new contents of the article.--kralahome 19:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The AfD tag was placed on the talk page instead of on the article itself. I've moved it to the right place. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a wondeful compilation of little insignificant facts that all together embellish American history. Also it's an amazing source for trivia. If it does get deleted I already added it to the AntiWikipedia since the article does need to be saved from extinction.24.90.233.29 02:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't see any good reason to delete this. Carfiend 03:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see any good reason to keep this. None of it is properly sourced, and we could all sit around all day thinking up new connections between Lincoln and Kennedy, but so what? Without a direct source for each datum, it's completely original research. Crabapplecove 03:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Detailed, yes, but seems to fall under WP:NOT collection of info (#2 Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics). I'm sure there has been books, Reader's Digest articles and other items about this subject, but to nom's comment, let's not start a List of similarities between Foo and Bar &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 03:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep In light of the massive revisions and improvements to the article, I have changed my vote concensus building notation. Good job to all who worked on it, much less listy, more articley.  Let's hope this starts a trend, much rather have an "Articles for Improvement" turnaround out of AfDs. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 23:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete random information - such pages could be made about any two people. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep after rewrite - this no longer feels like random info, but rather an article about a previously existing list - no longer OR. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Significant piece of American folklore. This list of similarities is older than the internet, and might even outlast Wikipedia. dryguy 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete by WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information) and WP:OR (unless someone comes up with more than just a single website citing some of the similarities mentioned in the article). -- Koffieyahoo 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Neutral after rewrite, but the list should be kept clean from any original research. -- Koffieyahoo 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Plus, this is a list of hand-picked similarities.  Given enough time, you could make a similar list of similarities between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.  -- Grev 04:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The original list was, as Kralahome and others independently concluded, a demonstration of how easy it is to find coincidences between two events; the creator was skeptic Martin Gardner and the original publication was in Scientific American. The list now circulates as an urban legend. That should be the topic of the article, not an ever-expanding WP:OR list of speculation. I'm not sure it warrants a full article, but it certainly warrants a discussion in the Gardner article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In Gardner's book, "The Magic Numbers of Dr. Matrix", p. 42, he mentions prior publication of the list in the Aug. 10 Newsweek and the Aug. 21 Time magazine in 1964, so I doubt he was the original author of the list. Like most urban folklore, the origin may never be established. The list, as reproduced in his book, contains only 16 items. The entire chapter 4 of the book is devoted to the subject. dryguy 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's the archived Time article: http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,876021,00.html. I didn't pay to read all of it, but it looks like the article was based on a previous article in the "G.O.P. Congressional Committee Newsletter." dryguy 18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's just a list of coincidences. In fact, some are not even conincidences, like "Both Corbett and Ruby were known as unstable men who were prone to violence." This would be expected in lone assassins (as opposed to a military operation or a revolutionary group) of political figures. Another thing that is not irregular enough to be a coincidence is "Both assassins knew of their victims' whereabouts by reading about it in newspapers." The media is by far the most likely source of information for the assassins, so there are two choices, newspapers and television news. Others are just silly, like "Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre. Kennedy was shot in a Ford car; a Lincoln limousine." Still others are common to many if not most U.S. presidents, like military service and the studying of law. Few things that are listed are true coincidences and most of them are still not that unusual. However, coincidences happen all the time and there are so many things that are not coincidences that are not listed. For example, the presidents and assassins had different first and last names and they were not wearing identical clothing during the assassinations. Also, they were not shot on the same date. Finally, the presidents and assassins were different ages at the time of the assassinations (measured to the year). -- Kjkolb 05:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WPINAICOI. Medtopic 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to Keep. I like that rewrite identifies it as a piece of folklore, which should serve as a barrier against the inclusion of random information. Medtopic 17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete True, this has been around for a long time, but it's hardly encyclopaedic. If we had an article on Buddy Starcher's top forty hit "History Repeats Itself" from '66 where he just spouts off some of these, perhaps one or two examples could be included there, but on its own it's just an arbitrary collection of info that could be done for any two entities. GassyGuy 07:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The rewrite is better and the topic may squak by as far as encyclopaedic content. I'd prefer it be a section of something rather than an article unto itself, but as there's nowhere to merge it where it wouldn't just be clutter, this seems the best solution. GassyGuy 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not an encyclopedic list. MLA 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to Weak Keep as I think the new version may be notable but I'm open to persuasion. I'm not in favour of the bias towards pop/internet phenomonen on wikipedia but this may be one that has sufficient notability.  Could be further refined but that's an editing issue rather than a deletion one. MLA 17:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * List of similarities between this and a deleted article: 1) all of them. - CheNuevara 10:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and MLA. DarthVad e r 10:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete recommendation withdrawn after rewrite but I don't wish to recommend that it should be kept. DarthVad e r 03:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete a perennial hoax. I presume that Snopes has a page on it, but I doubt it has sources outside of the e-mail forwarding set. Z iggurat 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename and keep Hey, a source outside Internetania! Keep it, but the name has to go as it's no longer an accurate description of the article (per Paul August) Z iggurat 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm -- GWO
 *  Delete : First, it's not necessary to lodge it here, as everyone will get it by forwarded e-mail within the first day of having an address.  Second, these are not similarities.  They are coincidences.  Additionally, there is an implicit argument by analogy.  It's one step more refined than "Hitler had a moustache, and so does your father."  Snopse does have a page on it.  Geogre 11:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be optimistic. I'm going to show more faith in the world than usual (hey, I'm on Wikipedia, so I've got to believe in people somewhat) and change my view to very hopeful keep.  The current version is about the folklore.  So long as the future doesn't overwrite the article as yet another "didja know" list, we're in good shape.  Congratulations and thanks to those who put in the work.  Geogre 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if rewritten for context per Dhartung. This list in particular has some recurrance over the past couple decades at least... every so often a newspaper reprints it in their oddball/misc./etc. section (usually to make the obvious point about the ease of finding similarities). The original source seems to be Gardner's 1967 column in the Scientific American (title only here, reprinted here). It's even spawning parody ("Kennedy slept in the Lincoln bedroom, and Lincoln slept in the Lincoln bedroom") :-). Fireplace 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's not have lists of similarities between foo and bar but this is a bit of folklore that has been around for 40 years. I seem to remember a verion in Time magazine - there must be sources!    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The idea that there is a strange coincidence in the circumstances of Lincoln and Kennedy has long been a pop culture fixation. Specific content issues should be worked out in the article, not by deleting it. WilyD 13:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - the list is just a random collection of facts (some possibly dubious). As Dhartung pointed out, the origins of this might be worth a mention in the Gardner article, but this list article itself is pointless. -- Whpq 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if rewritten per Dhartung. The article shouldn't add more similarities, but instead should describe the phenomena and the explanation of the supposed "coincidences."   Da rk Sh ik ar i   13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; Interesting trivia, but I hate to think what would happen if we had a slew of "List of similarities between X and Y". Also I'm not sure how much of this information can be readily verified. Can this be transwiki'd somewhere instead? &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not aware of another such list of similarities that has anywhere near the notability of this list, so we are not in danger of a flood of similar articles. This list has been circulating for 43 years. As mentioned by others, the article needs cleanup to clarify the status as urban legend, remove the less commonly noted similarities, and note the faults and inaccuracies of many of the items on the list. That doesn't change the status of this list as a notable piece of American folklore. dryguy 16:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dark Shikari and others. This could be an interesting article. Zagalejo 17:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite per the folklore rationale as mentioned by others. Erechtheus 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and other reasons given above. Picking up on what Dhartung and Kjkolb said, I suspect that some smart math person well versed in probability could probably point out the problems in making a big deal about these coincidences. I, however, barely remember how to add. Agent 86 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The coincidences themselves may not stand up under scrutiny, but that still hasn't stopped the list from circulating. It's a familiar and notable list, regardless of whether the items on it are valid. Zagalejo 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen this circulate many times, just rewrite per what everybody's saying. Cut down on the amount of items listed and explain the folklore surrounding it. Specifically, talk about the similarities between the assassinations, as that's rather unique to the two presidents. A lot of the other stuff is, as has been pointed out, pure chance, however the assassination similarities are rather striking. syphonbyte (t 17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim it down to only the most cited coincidences/similarities. This is a subject that has certainly been notable enough to be featured in TV documentaries and discussions of the assassinations. 23skidoo 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak keep per rewrite although it does need a rename. It's on Snopes and most of it is false anyway and it violates WP:NOT . Whispering 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The accuracy of the list is not in dispute! It is known to contain false information. The article needs to make clear that the list is inaccurate, but that does not diminish the notability of the list as folklore. There are other false urban legends that are notable that have their own articles. See Fan death, Barometer question and Great_Wall_of_China for examples. dryguy 20:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and CheNuevara. ---Charles 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - But clean up and include verifiable comparisons. These coincidences have long been the subject of speculation, and has enjoyed discussion accross many publications; including Ripley's Believe it or Not as well as many "non-fiction" books on the paranormal. --Merkurix 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dryguy and Zagalejo, who quite properly elucidate the distinctions betwixt that which is asserted as fact and that which is asserted as notable in view of its currency and betwixt that which is verifiable (here, the fact of the meme's existence) and that which is true. as cleaned up, and, per others, move (assuming arguendo that no signular name exists for the meme, it might be appropriate simply to retitle as Abraham Lincoln-John F. Kennedy similarities meme (Abraham Lincoln-John F. Kennedy similarities Internet meme is improperly precise, I think, inasmuch as print copies have long been prevalent)
 * Delete and rewrite as an article about the list. The list, itself, is potentially verifiable, but not notable, and WP:OR unless each entry has a secondary source.  The fact of the list's existence is verifiable (although there are few teriary sources) and potentially notable.  (I see one sentence that could be kept, and the opening paragraph could be edited to something usable.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Much improved. Weak Keep, but rename.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but if it is kept, I'll be expecting on article on List of similarities between Peyna and God. Peyna 02:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to clean it up, but the biggest problem is the selection criteria. They all have been chosen to suggest a connection that doesn't exist.  Should we also list all of their dissimilarities so as to not lead the reader down an inappropriate train of thought?  This list is encouraging the reader to draw illogical conclusions based on the article.  A disclaimer at the top would be pointless, because at that point we're admitting the unencyclopedicness of the article. Peyna 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think that a mention of the list's status as sort of folklore would be more appropriate and clarify things for the reader. syphonbyte (t 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have completely rewritten the article. I hope folks find this rewrite acceptable. If so, perhaps we can keep the article either at its current location, or at a new name such as Lincoln Kennedy Coincidences (urban legend). dryguy 05:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is the proper approach to take with this article (I was going to propose something similar, but then decided Syphonbyte pretty much covered it). The article should be about the phenomenon of drawing irrational conclusions based on selective comparisons of important individuals.  What it be real great would be if we could find some primary sources to cite.  With that, I've changed my vote to Keep on the basis of the rewrite, but would support a name change. Peyna 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ...per original nom. rootology 06:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * *Bang* *Bang* I'm assaDeleting this article --Cloveious 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOT, WP:OR.-- Dakota 17:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete it presents the list in a very POV light and immediately beginning by stating that it is debunked - how can an article on an english encyclopedia use the word debunk and still seem balanced? It is unfortunate though as this could be a good article - however not as a list as a history of the list with some examples and a discussion of the discrepancies. Just because the subject matter is a list doesn't mean this has to be --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not quite. It states that Martin Gardner debunked the list and cites the book where he debunked it. It does not say that Martin Gardner was correct. If it did so, that might be regarded as POV, but it doesn't. dryguy 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment hmm yeah but does he use the word debunk? If not then it is the article authors view not fact. Besides it gets used in a seperate context later on which indicates the debunking as fact not a given point of view - slight differenc I know but it niggles me. The sad thibng is this is a good and interesting subject matter - I woul like to see it rewritten as an article about the list not a descriptive list of the list. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Rename. The current content documents a notable part of American culture. Should be renamed to something like: Lincoln Kennedy Coincidences (urban legend}. Paul August &#9742; 18:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Coincidences" was the original title, but it was changed for the following reason: The New American Oxford Dictionary defines coincidence n. as "A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent casual connection." Most the information in this article would not qualify as "remarkable." (quoting User:LibraryLion). Peyna 18:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep after rewrite. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the rewrite. I still say delete. It's still not that important. - CheNuevara 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - after the rewrite it's much better but I remain a bit unconvinced it needs its own article. -- Whpq 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepFun to read in 64, fun now.Edison 03:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While an article about a specific published list may be fine, the article should not be a list itself, which falls into the original research realm. 172 | Talk 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * comment actually that is an important point, at the moment it isn't made clear (if at all) that the information is coming from the book - or any other source. You cannot say John Wilkes Booth was shot by a trooper during efforts to capture him - hardly an assasination without a reference even if it is true - because that is original research. Also that sentences could be counted as NPOV as well - hardly an assasination is the writers point of view. --Errant      In fact I'm going to remove that bit --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable coincidences. --Revolución  hablar   ver  18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, interesting factoids. However, more sourced information/references would be appreciated.Smeelgova 04:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -Agree with above statement completely. Orangehead 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - when you get two similar traumatic evebts there will always be coincidences to find. A very much larger list can be compiled of things that were different. But the question is; so you can generate coincidences; so what? BlueValour 02:32, 1 August 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.