Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 23 enigma

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept

The 23 enigma

Created (on April 1st, if it matters) by the same person who created the above Paul F Savage article. Appears to be patent nonsense. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 01:33, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsense musings. Every sentence makes sense, the whole text doesn't. Andris 01:36, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
And the point is..... delete. Fire Star 03:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to 23 (number). -Sean Curtin 03:29, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep it after revision, perhaps rename it. At the very least, include it in 23 (number) or redirect to numerology or illuminati - there are people (crazy, sure) who think the number 23 has special meaning. [Google it]. - Tlotoxl 03:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to 23 (number). — Gwalla | Talk 05:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to 23 (number) after revision. For example, "I myself chuckled when I came to this site..." has to go, since Wikipedia is not a person that can use the first person singular pronoun. Also, William Shakespeare's exact birthday is not known. See his article. [[User:Livajo|Livajo - т]] 06:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep; rewrite in a better reference to Illuminati. Clear off dubious statements or mark them as such. "23 enigma" gives quite a few google hits. Mikkalai 07:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep after substantial revision, with possible merge or rename. It may appear to be patent nonsense, but it is not, no more than the Invisible Pink Unicorn is. Like IPU, it's a notional construct that is popular among a significant number of people and has a meaning to them. That appears to be all the justification needed for IPU; the 23 enigma has, in addition, multiple literary connections (William S. Burroughs and the Illuminatus trilogy) and multiple meanings (the trilogy holds up the enigma first to advance the notion that secret forces are at work in our world, and later to suggest that those who believe said notion of secret forces are misled, mistaking coincidence for significance.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Given the above (and the revision done on it since), I'm changing my stance to merge and redirect. (Although I point out that many Discordians would agree with me that Discordianism itself is patent nonsense. ;) ) --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 02:15, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
~~Merge and redirect to 23 (number)~~ I'm leaning towards a weak Keep because this page can be used as an example for Apophenia, Pareidolia, and Synchronicity. --Viriditas 10:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If it's got some common cultural currency then people may well want to look it up. Just because it's nonsense doesn't mean it doesn't have a place. cf. Christianity, fairies and astrology.--Tomheaton 11:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep or merge all content into 23 (number).--Sonjaaa 07:02, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If this and this makes sense, we should definitely keep. Dieter Simon 23:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Still isn't making any sense. On closer inspection, it belongs neither in Apophenia nor Pareidolia nor Synchronicity nor Numerology. This is more like a list of random (and dubious) trivia. --Andylkl 07:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FYI...I never said it belonged in apophenia, pareidolia, or synchronicity. I said it was an example of those things, which it is, and in that collective context the term makes perfect sense. Out of curiousity, are you familiar with the works of Robert Anton Wilson? --Viriditas 07:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's an example of those things, I know. The reason I'm not looking foward to keeping this article is because it's extremely similar to this one on Snopes. Should there be an article about the conincidences of the 9/11 attacks and a bunch of 11's? In this case, instead of 11's it's a list of trivia related to the number 23. And no, I am not familiar with Rober Anton Wilson's works. --Andylkl 08:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Needs a bit of cleanup. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 20:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. As an article it is nonsense, some of the points might be justified in 23 (number). User:MartinSpamer
Delete. There is no "enigma", and the examples of the "enigma" cited are mostly nonsensical. - Nunh-huh 21:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I rewrote the entry, though it still needs some work. 23 enigma returns 800+ hits on google. I know it's nonsense. You know it's nonsense. But some people out there believe, so it should be included. There are books, newspaper articles and lots of internet stuff about this, and therefore there should be an entry. There is after all an entry for fairy, and they are also nonsense. If you still think it should be deleted then please consider rewriting it more instead. --Tomheaton 22:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

and for "21 enigma" we get 823 google hits, for "22 enigma" 1030 hits, for "24 enigma" 787 hits, and "25 enigma" 985 hits. You surely don't propose an article for each of these (and the thousands of ther combinations of a number + enigma)? - Nunh-huh 22:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect with 23 (number). While the article as it stands now is certainly worthy of retention, it is hardly a widespread belief. As noted by Nunh-huh above, other enigmas of similar sort generate around a thousand hits each on Google. Triskaidekaphobia (thirteen is unlucky) has existed for nearly a millenium at least and generates 7060 hits on Google. That sort of thing isn't just a sub-property of thirteen; the 23 enigma is.
Yes, it's relevant. Just not relevant enough for a separate article. •→Iñgólemo ←• 04:22, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
Keep I kind of like this article. There are planty of other random articles worth less than this one. I don't think it needs to be redirected to just the number 23 either because I think it stands fine alone. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 18:15, 04 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.