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. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First deletion reason. Article fails to assert its notability by reference to a single reliable source WP:NN. Wholely original research and opinion violating WP:RS and WP:NPOV (Note: blogs don't meet WP criteria). Part of a walled garden in conspiracy theory circles. Article has been deleted once before, and re-created.Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Morton devonshire 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - is there a link to the past AfD? I would like to see past reasons given for deletion and see if it passes any of those in its recreation. --NuclearZer0 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coincidence theory. Wrong again. Coincidence Theory was speedy deleted in 2005 for ((db|Minimal and unencyclopaedic content)). See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Coincidence+Theory — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article contains no citations, no sources other then Indymedia and other blogs. Per WP:V and WP:RS I believe this article should be deleted. After Edison added the citations I ran into another problem, I wanted to test out the usage of this terma nd so I searched CNN, NyDailynews, NyPost, BBC, and *.gov (through google) and surprisingly came up pretty empty except for its usage in relation to biology and one source that uses in quotation marks, seeming more to mock the idea of coincidence then actually use the term genuinely. --NuclearZer0 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere is a New York times article referenced in the talk page. Catchpole 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link it into the article, then add a few more so it appropriately passes WP:V and WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added 3 other references from the New York Times which use the term in the sense of the article, not including the one mentioned in the talk pade, which I think uses it in a different sense. I also revised the last paragraph to accurately describe coincidence theory as an alternative to conspiracy theory, based on the fact thay when you examine a worldwide collection of people and events, soem surprising relationships are found purely by chance. Now it is NPOV and has reliable and verifiable sources. Edison 17:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote to neutral per the new links, but not keep because while NYTimes comes up with 3 hits, which isnt much in 24 years of archives, BBC and CNN come up with none at all, making me wonder if the term is really notable or widely used enough to warrant an article. I will do some more research on other news sites I find to be reliable and change my vote accordingly. --NuclearZer0 17:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing back to delete, I checked two local papers and 2 more WP:RS sites that contain archives and couldnt find this term anywhere other then on NYTimes, which makes me wonder if its based more on the person they interviewed or on the fact that they use the term, meaning did they ask for it be stated in that term. I appreciate Edison's efforts but its obviously lacking notability and possibly should just be transwiki'd to the dictionary wiki thingy. --NuclearZer0 18:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unsourced, OR, per nom. - Crockspot 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Took a second look, no change in opinion. Crockspot 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable neologism unused outside of conspiracy theory circles. Bears superficial resemblance to pseudoskepticism and perhaps authors would be better off improving that article. External links list reads like the authors did a Google search for the term and just put a laundry list of links in, with no real regard for reliable sources. Individual claims are not cited, and thus it is hard to tell if it is original research.--Rosicrucian 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this discussion has been linked to at User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Catchpole 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also at User:Morton devonshire/IlluminatiNoticeboard. 04:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mathematical coincidence or Coincidence point. Disregarding the realm of conspiracy theories, it is a valid mathematical concept in and of itself.[1][2] [3] Google on "coincidence theory" -conspiracy mathematical for more hits. *Sparkhead 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and others above. I think this was created to make a point about the use of the term conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added 3 citation from the New York Times to the article, showing its use from the 1990's to the present. It is really an alternative to a conspiracy theory, based on the law of large numbers. Edison 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If its primary use is to insinuate that some things actually are coincidences, then the article is taking the exact opposite approach.--Rosicrucian 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• After my edit, it no longer says that "coincidence theory" supports conspiracy theories. Coincidences can be just that. If you consider 6 billion people's individual experiences for even one day, 6,000 of them should experience "one in a million" happenings just by coincidence.Edison 21:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and because its a neologism. Brimba 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Tbeatty 05:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above.--CSTAR 02:33, 6 November 2006 (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.