Deletion of Coincidence theory (second nomination)

Comment: per nom and others above. I think this was created to make a |point about the use of the term ''conspiracy theory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: Article contains no citations, no sources other then Indymedia and other blogs. Per  and  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)