Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numbers & Professions

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. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers & Professions

This article was submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. The article, which is over a year and a half old, asserts a numerological relationship between the day of the month on which a person is born and the occupations for which the person is most suited. No sources are provided, making the article unverifiable. (Note that I do not expect the article's supporters to find verification in reliable sources that the numerological relationship is true, but they should at least be expected to provide verification that this is a well-known belief, as opposed to being either original research or the views of a single author not accepted in the larger occult community.) I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lengthy, unsourced, made-up nonsense; how did it last this long? Opabinia regalis 07:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:OR MartinDK 08:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made-up nonsense per Opabinia . meshach 08:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, pseudoscientific original research. MER-C 09:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:OR, WP:V and WP:N. It is nonesense with no assertion of how widely held belief in this nonesense actually is... WJBscribe 11:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the present contents do not justify the existence of this page. There are many such nonsense in the wikipedia! --Bhadani 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia has acquired the characteristics of an encyclopedia based on general consensus and the consensus would largely be limited to the basic knowledge base of our editors. As such, it is not strange that many nonsense (including the one like above) shall continue to remain a part of wikipedia, and many writers would have written many books on such nonsense! :) --Bhadani 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either original research or unsourced and unverified. JIP | Talk 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV pushing veiled behind "Many claim", in addition to lack of sources.-Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Interesting. It says I should have been a writer or an artist. I am actually both of these by profession :)[reply]
Strong delete unsourced, patent nonsense and POV. But then again if we have an entire article devoted to the relationship between race and intelligence.... *cry* +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have many things which we do not require here including the Numbers & Professions crafted by me! But, based on what I have read in some books. However, Race and intelligence is still greater nonsense indeed. --Bhadani 11:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Nearly every psychological, astrological, and other -ogical system tends to offer insight (forecasting) into what careers are best in light of whatever makes that system unique (in this case numbers). I am guessing the information was culled from the further reading sources, possibly hedging to avoide copyright infringement by lumping it all together. If citations could be found and the overall length reduced, it would be nice to merge it with one of the Numerology articles. --Willscrlt 13:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nosense Banvasi 07:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm glad to see several references have been added since the nom - I'm not convinced this deserves its own article, but it might have a home in the main Numerology article. I'd like to see a summarised version like the "Number definitions" section that's already there (but don't just copy-paste the whole thing!). Quack 688 08:39, 4 December 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.