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 Keep, obviously. If the article is really bad but on a valid topic, we don't delete it we just remove the crud. User:Reywas92 has volunteered to clean it up. Although I participated in the debate, consensus is as clear as day here and there's no point keeping the debate open any longer. Any further comments should be addressed at improving the article, on Talk:23 (numerology) kingboyk 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23 (numerology)

[edit]

Horribly unreferenced pseudoscience, a similar list of occurrences could probably just as easily be tied to any other number. The WP:LEAD is rambling and speculative, however removing the problem parts would leave it meaningless. Previous attempts to solve the issues with this have either been ineffective or were little more than sweeping it under the carpet (e.g. forking it from 23 (number)). In summary, with the OR and V issues, not to mention the use of weasel terms, this article is now beyond help. Chris cheese whine 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anyone that may be considering "Keep and cleanup" recommendations shoud check the article and talk history, also read this. It has been to cleanup already, to no avail. Chris cheese whine 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable number in numerology which has been referenced in numerous literary works (the writings of William Burroughs and Robert Anton Wilson, for a start), not to mention inspiring a major film only a few weeks ago. The article needs to be expanded and sources added, etc., but I feel the topic is notable enough to be kept. Content issues can be addressed at the article level. PS I have read the above noted and have discounted it. That's still a content issue, and not an issue as to whether this article has a place in Wikipedia. I say it does. All the note above did was make me change my opinion from "keep" to "strong keep". 23skidoo 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are in effect saying "I don't believe this article is in a fit state, but we should keep it anyway"? Chris cheese whine 01:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, yes, the rule is, even if an article is in abysmally poor condition, if there's something of merit to the subject, it's better to keep and improve it. Now it might be worthwhile to blank it in this case, but I don't know that I see a problem with the edit history being kept. Something like libel or copyvio would be grounds for deletion, but I don't know that that's true. FrozenPurpleCube 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all the useless trivia from both the 23 (numerology) and 23 (number) articles, then merge the two together.--TBCΦtalk? 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I would suggest in-line citations for this to keep out original research. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but continue to clean with a firehose. I took out the pop culture references that didn't make explicit reference to the numerological significance of 23 and encourage others to plug away at directly sourcing unsourced content remaining in the article. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe, as I stated on the talk page, that the occurances on 23 (number) and this (including some good which has been deleted and is in history) should be merged onto this article with major trimming of unimportant occurances. Reywas92^Talk 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will accept your argument on the strict condition that you agree to personally take up the task of verifying that every single prospective entry is a specific reference to the "enigma", and not merely coincidence (per WP:NOT#IINFO). Chris cheese whine 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this a rather interesting topic and I will take this up. Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They've made two movies about this number, so it's clearly notable. It doesn't matter if an article is hard to keep clean, and thinking an article should be kept implies no responsibility beyond truly believing an article should be kept. - Peregrine Fisher 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No article about a reasonable subject is beyond help. Since this subject has received some attention, it needs to be covered. I wouldn't mind merging it somewhere, but this seems like a content dispute, not a reason to delete. Lots of articles on Wikipedia are difficult to write, some attract the attention of some less than reasonable folks. It's the nature of Wikipedia, which will not be written in a day. FrozenPurpleCube 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may be poor, but the subject is not. It can be verified. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourceable, notable enough. - Denny 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number 23 is notable due to it's presence in movies, several secret societies and other notable areas. It may well be a pseudoscience as mentioned, but this does not mean it isn't notable. Poeloq 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might not be a great article but it's a valid topic. Somebody speedy close this please? --kingboyk 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the article is garbage, and sympathize with the plea of the nominator, but frustration over cleaning up an article is not a reason to delete it. At the very least, it can be turned into a stub with whatever information can be verified, and then started over. --Mus Musculus 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion. All hail Eris. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.