Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuremberg Trials-Sons of Haman Coincidence?: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* As for Original Reasearch- I disagree. All the factual claims in the article are fully referenced by reliable secondary sources. As for notability- I wish to point that other claims of coincidence/precognition etc. are mentioned in wikipedia and some even got their own article in wikipedia, see e.g. [[Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences urban legend]], [[Bible Code]], [[Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan]]. Also see [[R v Dudley and Stephens#Cultural Impact]]. As for the rabbinical authors that uncovered the link- I'd be happy to credit them if you have citations for these. Ok412 |
* As for Original Reasearch- I disagree. All the factual claims in the article are fully referenced by reliable secondary sources. As for notability- I wish to point that other claims of coincidence/precognition etc. are mentioned in wikipedia and some even got their own article in wikipedia, see e.g. [[Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences urban legend]], [[Bible Code]], [[Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan]]. Also see [[R v Dudley and Stephens#Cultural Impact]]. As for the rabbinical authors that uncovered the link- I'd be happy to credit them if you have citations for these. Ok412 |
||
** Yes, but at the moment it seems ''you'' are the originator of the observation. You are using sources to support certain premises, but it's still a [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] of your sources. At any rate, I doubt the whole thing is notable. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC) |
** Yes, but at the moment it seems ''you'' are the originator of the observation. You are using sources to support certain premises, but it's still a [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] of your sources. At any rate, I doubt the whole thing is notable. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
*** It's not my synthesis at all as I mentioned at the start of the article that the observation was made decades ago and was since then promoted by many peopleand organizations. I now also added the attribution to the Rebbe of Vizhnitz and to Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl, though I'd like to see the citations. As for notablity, I don't think it's less notable than all the examples I gave above. |
|||
Revision as of 20:31, 15 August 2010
- Nuremberg Trials-Sons of Haman Coincidence? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. This piece of wisdom is well known in Jewish circles, but it does not deserve its own Wikipedia article for notability reasons. The current article is a piece of original research that doesn't even credit the rabbinical authors that uncovered the "[5]707" link (it has been traced both to the Rebbe of Vizhnitz and to Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl). JFW | T@lk 19:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- As for Original Reasearch- I disagree. All the factual claims in the article are fully referenced by reliable secondary sources. As for notability- I wish to point that other claims of coincidence/precognition etc. are mentioned in wikipedia and some even got their own article in wikipedia, see e.g. Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences urban legend, Bible Code, Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan. Also see R v Dudley and Stephens#Cultural Impact. As for the rabbinical authors that uncovered the link- I'd be happy to credit them if you have citations for these. Ok412
- Yes, but at the moment it seems you are the originator of the observation. You are using sources to support certain premises, but it's still a synthesis of your sources. At any rate, I doubt the whole thing is notable. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's not my synthesis at all as I mentioned at the start of the article that the observation was made decades ago and was since then promoted by many peopleand organizations. I now also added the attribution to the Rebbe of Vizhnitz and to Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl, though I'd like to see the citations. As for notablity, I don't think it's less notable than all the examples I gave above.
- Yes, but at the moment it seems you are the originator of the observation. You are using sources to support certain premises, but it's still a synthesis of your sources. At any rate, I doubt the whole thing is notable. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)