Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11 (numerology) (2nd 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 to delete. Until(1 == 2) 15:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 11:11 (numerology)

11:11 (numerology) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previously deleted in 2005 and then kept in early 2006. The majority of the reasons to keep it in 2006 were based around it being "interesting" or words to that effect. Mention was also made of some comments by Uri Geller and the mention of this number in a film, neither of which have survived in the article. As a result, we have here a very brief stub on a theory which "some people believe", with no sources demonstrating that anyone in fact believes it or whether it's a notable theory BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note All the votes are for the version of the article thats been pared down in order to delete it. Please read the version containg the full references. See stable version here--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That this article has, on occasion, had a reference in it doesn't mean that it has been "pared down in order to delete it". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- current version is probably not even of stub length. Non-notable in the context presented. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I am the person who previously nominated this. I agree with Bighaz's points. No one has stepped forward to present reliable sources that show the notability of these beliefs. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11 phenomenon which resulted in a rename to this article. Originally I voted to delete this article because I thought we had not established notability. After reconsidering, I've come to the conclusion that the new version contains enough sources to establish notability. Notability was always the only concern for me. The article still needs more sources to bring it beyond a start class article, but that's besides the point for purposes of this discussion.TheRingess (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. And expand back to an earlier version. The disambiguation page 11:11 needs a companion article to explain why people are attracted to the number with sourced material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I might agree if anyone has ever stepped forward and shown that this is anything except fringe material. No one has even established that a sufficient number of people are attracted to this time of day, let alone why they might be. It seem s to me to be original research to try to answer the why before we have even established the what. TheRingess (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no ban against sourced fringe material. If there was a ban, we wouldn't have articles on minority religions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as well as expand per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). The version that exists now is dreadfully in need of being improved and wields little to show that this is a phenomenon past what "some people believe" without any actual sources (which should be numerous, given that it's frequently referenced along Coast to Coast AM). DrWho42 06:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is there a reliable source for this "phenomenon" beyond "Coast to Coast". Is there a reputable science journal that has published the research results of someone studying this "phenomenon". It seems unlikely to me that a reputable journal would risk their reputation on research that purports to show that there is an actual link between the numbers on a clock and the physical world. Who has established that there is an actual, real, verifiable phenomenon that we can write about? Coast to coast seems to talk about a lot of fringe material, I'm not convinced that inclusion on CTC justifies inclusion on Wikipedia.TheRingess (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There were sources until someone deleted all the sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Were they reliable sources? See WP:RS.TheRingess (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You seem to be confusing "science" and "philosophy". "reputable science journals" don't usually write about philosophy. Wikipedia doesn't require philosophical concepts to be scientifically vetted. We have whole categories on New Age philosophy, and whole categories on pseudoscience. Wikipedia isn't about "truth", its about verifiable sources. If concepts had to be scientific, we wouldn't have articles on religion. Religion is based on faith. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No I'm not. What I'm saying is that Wikipedia is not a repository of every bizarre belief ever held by any individual anywhere. What I'm driving at, is we need to show that beliefs are notable. For example, the Black cat article mentions the magical properties assigned to black cats by humans throughout the ages. We have a plethora of sources in sociological literature and pop culture that chronicle and define those associations. Ask an average person on the street what superstitions they've heard about black cats and they will probably tell you that they bring bad luck (or some variation). See also, the number 7, the number 13, even the number 3, or Loch Ness, UFO's, ghosts, etc. These all have articles because they represent notable beliefs. My problem with this article has always been that I believe we did not establish notability. I argue that the beliefs around this time of day are not nearly as well know as any of the other subjects I've mentioned. So it's always seemed to me that we need to establish and answer several questions. When did people start assigning magical properties to this time of day? Have these magical properties entered mainstream pop culture enough to be recognizable by a majority of English speaking persons? What are the properties specifically assigned to this time of day? I'm willing to admit that this is just my viewpoint based on my reading of Wikipedia's core content policies. My experience has been that all articles need to meet some minimal notability requirements. Perhaps I'm being too strict for topics such as this one. But I hardly think that I'm confusing science and philosophy. You have gone a long way toward establishing that these beliefs are notable enough for an article.TheRingess (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is a repository for every bizarre belief that can be verified with "multiple independent sources". Certainly the BBC and the multiple books on the topic are verifiable, and are independent. Almost all the references are ones I readded, that were deleted just before this nomination to have the article removed. And of course, you have removed them multiple times. First you argued there were too few references, them you deleted them again, saying there were now too many. It appears you just want to see the article disappear, rather than see it properly referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it's utter junk. Nick mallory 07:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's pure nonsense. There are no reliable notability claims for 11:11 and using the 'logic' in the article we could equally have an article for 10:10, 12:12 and 12:34 (or any other pattern you care to mention). If this is to be kept in any form it should be merged into Superstition.--Mendors 07:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Keep' The article has now been updated to include sufficient references to establish notability.--Mendors 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Your trying to use the fallacious slippery slope argument. Your saying if we let women vote, next they will let dogs vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment meh. I agree that it's dumb, but lots of people believe in it, much like Remote viewing or Telepathy (which cannot be 100% factually 'proven', but nonetheless have sources -- just like this topic should). I'm on a hiatus from voting one way or another (until I become less noobish and understand wiki policy better), but if this survives AfD and nobody else comes forward to expand it -- I'll do the necessary expanding and sourcing to provide context. The topic goes as far back as Uri Geller, and has also been covered by Andrija Puharic, and a lot of other people with weird names I can't remember right now, including some links to The Sirius Mystery), but like I said, if it survives AfD and nobody else sources it, I will.. I just don't care enough about the topic to go look them up right now to defend it as a keep vote. Spazure 07:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment One of my contentions is that we can't just say "lots of people believe in it", we have to establish that they do through reliable sources. Uri Geller is a reliable source for what Uri Geller believes, he is not a reliable source for how many people share his beliefs. Perhaps there is a reliable journal out there that has established how many people actually have superstitions about this time of day.TheRingess (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment You appear to be inventing new requirements for notability. The number of people believing in a concept has never been a requirement. We have an article on flat earth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

'Comment Actually I'm not. We have a flat earth article because we have reliable evidence that suggests at one point in time in the distant path most people believed that the earth was flat. The fact that they believed this is not disputed. We also have mutliple reliable sources that establish fairly accurately when the majority of people stopped believing in the flat earth. Their also exists a flat earth society that has been written about by many reliable sources not associated with the society itself. On the other hand, if we had no evidence that a large percentage of the human population at one point in time believed that theory, then the theory wouldn't be worth including (just my opinion). As an example, I could write create a website that documents my thoughts that the number 2178 has special healing powers. I could write that people who repeat this number in their head will be healed of innumerable afflictions. I could have forums on my website where people discuss their experiences. I could write a book expounding these beliefs. If I were famous, I might even get a BBC article that basically repeats what I say (I read the BBC article and it seems to be mostly a word for word copy of Geller's website). Does this mean that my theories get their own article? Why or why not? My website and my books and an article about me are reliable sources about what I believe, what I write and my life. Does my analogy make sense? What am I missing?TheRingess (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know we can't keep it based on the grounds that 'it probably has reliable sources out there somewhere', that's (partly) why I didn't bother with a keep vote -- I haven't gone home and dug out the books and notebooks I would need to leaf through to properly source this. Either way though, if it gets deleted, I won't have to think about how to write in pure NPOV form about something I oppose -- really the only point of my comment was that if it does manage to be kept, it won't be a weakly sourced stub for long. Personally, I wouldn't mind if all of the articles on pseudo-science topics disappeared altogether.. but as long as I'm an editor and have agreed to be NPOV in my edits, I feel a sort of moral obligation to correct articles when I know I have time/knowledge/resources to do so. Either way, it looks like it's going to get nuked, so I can go back to only editing articles about stuff I like anyway. Spazure 08:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 1111 times. There are too many similarly inane numbers to give an article for each one. There's already one lousy article covering this - Master Numbers (Numerology). Who needs another (or even the first one)? Clarityfiend 08:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Create Redirect to Uri Geller. User:TheRingess said "Perhaps there is a reliable journal out there that has established how many people actually have superstitions about this time of day." The thing is, noteability isn't about how many people hold the belief is it? But rather about whether most people have heard of it/it is a well-known concept, regardless of one's personal belief or lack of belief. redirect and merge to mention 11:11 in the Uri article. Clarityfriend says all inane numbers would get an entry but I don't think that's so- this is the most noteable and we can maybe mention the others in passing. Please can I have permission to see how much of this is in the Uri article? As this is only a small article, I don't think this will need much merging, and the page 11:11 (numerology) won't be needed for any other subject.Merkinsmum 09:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I beg to differ. I recently saw a TV news report about the upsurge of weddings on 07/07/07. They also expect another on 08/08/08 (8 being a Chinese "lucky number"). Clarityfiend 10:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Perhaps I should have said that we need to find a reliable source that has established how many people are aware of common beliefs regarding this time of day. The article can't just say that many people have heard of it, we have to establish that.TheRingess (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Every time I look at the clock it says 12:34. I was really creeped out until I realized the batteries were dead. ~ Infrangible 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have often heard 11:11 mentioned in this way. Sources need to be found however. Steve Dufour 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Will ^(talk) 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment how's about a comment on the Uri Geller page saying something to the effect of

Uri Geller has spoken repeatedly about 11:11, which he believes has mystical power[1][2][3] (one of the sources is the bbc.) This phenomenon has also been adopted by many believers in New Age philosophies [4][5] [6]. However some sceptics say that Geller's examples of 11:11 phenomenon in world events are examples of post-hoc reasoning [7] and confirmation bias. [8]

-would you be happy with that? I know some of the sources are flakey but they are only required to show the belief exists. We might think it's nonsense but some people believe in it. I agree though, this article as it stands doesn't contain much, so perhaps delete but I'd like to put this bit I wrote into the Uri Geller article. But I might just go to its talk page.:)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs).

• Weak keep there are probably enough sources, but there is no one version of the article to restore. some of the arguments above seem to be about whether the belief is valid, which is entirely irrelevant. DGG (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It seems the strategy to get this article deleted is to keep removing the references, then declaring there aren't enough references to have a legitimate article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a degree of bad faith being assumed there. I came upon an unreferenced stub and nominated it for deletion. I'm not responsible for what other people are doing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment could everyone look at the latest version of the article. I added my paragraph above, also there was another version with more references. Please look at past edits if it has been changed. It now has 16 sources so to me that makes it a strong keep. Some of the sources might be flakey, but it also has sceptical sources and comments for NPOV.Merkinsmum 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that all that is needed to keep the article is to establish that many people believe 11:11 has some special significance. We don't need to prove or disprove it. Steve Dufour 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment We need to establish the notability of this belief. If everything must be proved then we open up a huge issue in that all the religion based articles would need to be proved too.--Mendors 18:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree regarding notability, I think that it's the most relevant issue here. Although I am unsure what constitutes notability for a belief of this nature. I'm not convinced that a few references on websites and a mention by Uri Geller constitute notability. Does anyone know of past discussion that have discussed notability for articles of this type?TheRingess (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I had looked at the article earlier and saw almost nothing there. The article as it exists now provides the reliable and verifiable sources needed to demonstrate the belief that this is a notable phenomenon, even if there is justifiable leeriness of its existence. This article epitomizes that we look for verifiability, not truth, as a standard on Wikipedia. Alansohn 21:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Uri Geller is not a reliable source. Bearian 21:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the BBC is a reliable source about what Uri says. Given the number of other people discussing it I don't believe a merge Uri Geller is appropriate; maybe list of kooky beliefs in numerology. Kappa 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename 11:11 (time) We are talking about a "time" on a clock, correct? Nevermind the debate over whether time is a dimension or merely a measuring system. 11:11 is numerals (symbols) on a digital clock, right? The first 11 represents the "hour" of the "day" and the second 11 represents the "minute" and a "colon" separates the two. A number is an abstract idea used in counting and measuring, so it seems to me that 11:11 itself is an abstract idea. What is 11:11? A time on a digital clock (that measures time) that occurs twice in a 24-hour period. Is that a circular definition? I guess, but I can't think of another word than "a time" to describe 11:11. When people ask "what time is it?", others generally don't say "It's eleven eleven time." They just say "about a quarter past eleven" (or maybe "eleven eleven" if they're looking at a Windows toolbar). I think we are primarily talking about digital clock displays and not analog clocks. I think I've heard the phrase "noontime" before...but now I'm rambling. Apparently Uri Geller has mentioned[9] this particular time of day and some books[10][11] have been written about this time of day (or the numbers/symbols themselves). I haven't read the books but I think they may talk of the notion that when one looks at a clock, these numbers, or this specific time, appear frequently (or perhaps are noticed more). It appears to me that there may be superstitions about this time or "New Age" beliefs concerning angels, etc about this time (as seen in results from a search engine query). So, should 11:11 have a entry in Wikipedia? Currently, 11:11 is a disambiguation page with links to music albums, songs, etc. Should there be a Wikipedia page for 11:11, the time of day that appears twice daily on digital clocks? That may count as indiscriminate collection of information but if there is a segment of "New Age" thought that assigns significance to that time, it may be notable. There is a page on 666. The page 13 (number) contains a section called A Significant Number (which may be helpful in this case). Although perhaps 11:11 (numerology) is an attempt to start a new "meme" (if you believe in memes) in a similar way. This page[12] seems to be more about 11:11 in relation to numerology, but is it a reliable source? That page mentions "Solara"[13] (who published a book in 1992) and also mentions sacred geometry and 2012 (and that article mentions metaphysical predictions about the year). We could rename the page 11:11 (time) and list any significance attributed to it, much like the 2012 article. Is "Solara" a noted New Age author? The book was published by Star Borne Unlimited. Is that a self-published source? I don't know. Amazons lists at least 6 books by that author. So, would a page entitled 11:11 (numerology) serve as a promotion for these New Age books/theories? WP:FRINGE says Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is, although it *is* just a guideline afterall. A page exists for the movie The Number 23 (which was based on ideas by Robert Anton Wilson I believe). Some have said that noticing 11:11 more than other times is an example of confirmation bias and some have said noticing 11:11 is about hidden messages. The article looks OK to me right now[14]. If the page is deleted, I think the information on numerology should still remain on the 11:11 disambiguation page. 11:11 (numerology) is hyperlinked on 11 (number), 11:11, and Master Numbers (Numerology) and those hyperlinks seem appropriate to me. It could be said that every Wikipedia article promotes its topic and brings attention to it. "Worthy of notice" is a subjective opinion, but I think the idea of 11:11 has spread beyond "Solara" somewhat (and I'm not sure if that author originated it). We have articles on Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Time Cube, Law of Attraction, and The Secret. Supernatural beliefs about 11:11 may not be as mainstream as those topics -- that is why I recommend the page be renamed 11:11 (time) and the numerology information put in a section titled Numerology or Numerological significance or New Age significance. Failing that, perhaps the following should be added to the 11:11 page: A time appearing on a digital clock twice daily, 11:11AM and 11:11PM and 11:11 (numerology) would discuss the meaning[15] attributed to that time/symbol(s). On another note, this article reminds me of a certain X-Files episode. --Pixelface 12:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment' it's not like the article is entirely promotional for the idea, as it also includes strongly sceptical arguments. I also know a lot of people who have created a certain sub-culture aligned with the number 23, so would consider that worth an article. But maybe the circles I move in make me more aware about these issues.:)Merkinsmum 19:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

23 (number) is already an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know:) User:Pixelface mentioned it above. I was just saying that I personally know a lot of people who are into it, but maybe some people wouldn't. It is worth an article though, IMHO. Because people will google about 11:11, and here they could find an NPOV view of it easily.Merkinsmum 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't agree with renaming the article. Renaming it would result in the addition of 1 or 2 more sentences along the lines "11:11 is a time of day...". I'm not worried about whether or not we are promoting any of the names mentioned. We are not reviewing their books or ideas. We are merely presenting the idea that more than a few people have some supernatural beliefs about this time of day. We are leaving it up to the reader to decide for themselves how much merit these particular beliefs have.TheRingess (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

comment I agree, no need to rename, the article isn't about the time itself, but about a belief about it.Merkinsmum 11:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Expand: While the concept on this page is no scientific merit it is a notable numerological belief that exists in modern folklore/new age community. It should be kept and expanded on the grounds that it is widely known and remarked upon even if it is not factually accurate. Scientific value, or even a common sense approach (by believers), is not and never has been a Wikipedia criteria. - perfectblue 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep and quit pretending the list of 11:11 works is a coincidence: This debate is exhausting after all this time. The "belief" in 11:11 is ambiguous at best, but it is notable, and as such should have some mention on wikipedia. And as such I see no reason to keep segregating the information in the regular 11:11 article. While it is impossible to link each titled work to the phenomenon, it is mathematically absurd to suggest the preponderance of the number in such works is a random occurance. -- GIR 08:22, 27 July 2007 (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.