Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuremberg Trials-Sons of Haman Coincidence?


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuremberg Trials-Sons of Haman Coincidence?

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD. This piece of wisdom is well known in Jewish circles, but it does not deserve its own Wikipedia article for notability reasons. The current article is a piece of original research that doesn't even credit the rabbinical authors that uncovered the "[5]707" link (it has been traced both to the Rebbe of Vizhnitz and to Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl). JFW | T@lk  19:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Original Reasearch- I disagree. All the factual claims in the article are fully referenced by reliable secondary sources. As for notability- I wish to point that other claims of coincidence/precognition etc. are mentioned in wikipedia and some even got their own article in wikipedia, see e.g. Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences urban legend, Bible Code, Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan. Also see R v Dudley and Stephens. As for the rabbinical authors that uncovered the link- I'd be happy to credit them if you have citations for these. Ok412
 * Yes, but at the moment it seems you are the originator of the observation. You are using sources to support certain premises, but it's still a synthesis of your sources. At any rate, I doubt the whole thing is notable. JFW | T@lk  20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my synthesis at all as I mentioned at the start of the article that the observation was made decades ago and was since then promoted by many peopleand organizations. I now also added the attribution to the Rebbe of Vizhnitz and to Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl, though I'd like to see the citations. As for notablity, I don't think it's less notable than all the examples I gave above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ok412 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research/synthesis (using sources that don't mention this coincidence to argue for it is what I'm referring to), and a search on "Nuremberg Trials" and "Sons of Haman" turns up nothing in Google Books or Scholar. A few ordinary web hits, mainly blogs and the like, nothing that shows notability. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I found these on Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VBkkFXpaG0MC&pg=PA74&dq=haman+nuremberg+purim&hl=iw&ei=lVxoTPTCA9Td4gbUxI2ZBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=haman%20nuremberg%20purim&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_7HZor-iZacC&pg=PA6&dq=haman+nuremberg+purim+hebrew&hl=iw&ei=TV5oTIygJcel4QbTpJSZBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgy#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=vP0Afo6vglsC&pg=PA176&dq=haman+nuremberg+purim&hl=iw&ei=lVxoTPTCA9Td4gbUxI2ZBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=haman%20nuremberg%20purim&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=YU0IZcDmM8MC&pg=PA289&dq=haman+nuremberg+purim&hl=iw&ei=lVxoTPTCA9Td4gbUxI2ZBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=9&ved=0CFQQ6wEwCA#v=onepage&q=haman%20nuremberg%20purim&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ok412 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fringe POV push: On 16 October 1946, 10 Nazi leaders were hanged following the Nuremberg Trials. In the decades that passed since then, several religious Jewish (and Christian) people and outreach organizations have been trying to promote the speculation that there is a meaningful analogy between the hanging of the 10 Nazi leaders as a consequence, among other things, of their participation in the genocidal effort against the Jews, and the Biblical story about the hanging of the 10 sons of Haman, also as a final consequence of a (failed) genocidal plan against the Jews. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I keep a Neutral POV: to emphasize that I rephrased some sections and added a crictical section with a reference to critical site.--Ok412 (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Carrite. scope_creep (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete article creator has shown that some people have commented on the phrase uttered by the condemned man, but not that this is a notable, ie widely discussed, debated, or criticized speculation on a synchronistic event. Other possibly meaningful coincidences in history that are documented on WP tend to be widely discussed, often part of pop culture, which this isnt.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the web you can find dozens, if not hundreds, of sites discussing this issue. Do a Google Search on "purim fest 1946", or "haman's sons" and Nuremberg or "small letters" and esther. A google book search yields at least 10 books mentioning this as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ok412 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This appear to be a wild fringe theory based on the fact 10 war criminals were hung and 10 people were hung in the Bible. I would also agree that this appears to be pushed at this point.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a wild theory, but to be accurate, and as the article shows, it is actually based on at least 2 more coincidences beyond just the fact 10 war criminals were hung and 10 people were hung in the Bible. At any rate I reject the accusation that the article "pushes" this theory since it explicitly describes the theory as a controversial speculation and it explicitly mentions that it is an aposteriori observation that cannot be statistically "proved" in any reliable way. As for it being fringe, I think that as JFW said above, in (orthodox) Jewish circles it is well known and I may add that it also enjoys some popularity in those circles. I think there are many more believers in this theory than for example there are members in the Flat Earth Society. So if the latter fringe theory has a wikipedia entry why shouldn't the former?--Ok412 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2010 (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.