Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences

Raises the term 'speculation' to a new level of triviality... "Lincoln married Mary Todd ... She was 23 years 326 days old." "Both VPs have 6 letters in their first names and 7 in their last." etc. This reminds me of the Conspiracy Theory (movie). Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. EXTREMELY non-encyclopaedic. And probably original research. Sarg 13:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: How is it original research when the source is given in the article? Sonic Mew 13:23, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • The source is snopes.com, which isn't an entirely reliable source. Why couldn't original research come from an outside source? I don't know, I'm a bit skeptical about anything taking Snopes as a source. Sarg 15:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a very notable topic that has been a matter of discussion for many years. There have been documentaries devoted to it. It's not original research. 23skidoo 13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and trivial. Merge whatever info might be redeemable into John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln. — mark ✎ 15:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per 23skidoo Sonic Mew 19:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per 23skidoo Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this kind of thing is one of wikipedia's strengths. Kappa 22:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable "garbage" theory, should be maintained here for the purposes of debunking. Xoloz 04:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hold my nose and vote Keep. It's refried trivia, but it's been refried so many times that it's notable in and of itself, whether or not it's all true. The article at least casts a critical eye on it, which is more than you can say about someone who's just forwarded it to you four times in the last three months. Haikupoet 04:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Amen to the last sentence. As for me, keep because it does say it is a myth and (some) criticism - Skysmith 09:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with the points mentioned above. --Andylkl ^(talk) 08:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep... some folks make whole careers on this... -- BD2412 ^talk 10:02, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.