User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard

Introduction, purpose and inclusion criteria

This page is a noticeboard for editors interested in conspiracy-related AfDs. It began life as a tool to help users easily track the flood of 9/11 conspiracy theory AfDs that started around the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These AfDs primarily targetted articles on subjects with little or no notability, which violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V and which were created (in my opinion) for the purpose of promoting people, ideas, and books rather than for furthering wikipedia's mission. A great many wikipedians agreed with this assessment and as a result approx. 44 articles were deleted and approx. 8 AfDs did not reach a consensus. Because there is significant interest in tracking AfDs related to other conspiracy theories, I have broadened the page and renamed it GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Below I am formally defining the scope of the page based on its past usage and discussion at talk.

What can be included:

Articles, templates or miscellaneous pages dealing with conspiracy theories and their proponents, provided that the nominator feels that these pages either

Are Non-notable
Are Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisements
Violate WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:V
Are so inherently flawed that they cannot be brought up to wikipedia standards

What cannot be included:

Nominations based purely on the editors dislike of the subject of the article and not on policy
Articles unrelated to conspiracy theories

Finally, just because an AfD is listed here doesn't mean that I support it.

Note to editors - discuss this on the talk page, not here. When you add or comment on an XfD, please sign your comments. Thanks. GabrielF 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Current XfDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalee Grable - Non-notable conspiracist, fails WP:BIO. Bundled with the nomination is Hologram Theory, her theory that Americans were tricked into thinking planes hit the World Trade Center by advanced holograms.--Rosicrucian 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings a compilation of Original research and sources that fail WP:RS by a wide margin, for example citing Jeff Rense and Alex Jones (radio). Legitimate sources are cited, however, they do not give support to what is being said. Brimba 09:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Power of Israel in the United States - non-notable book, reading through an editorial review [1] I get the impression that its based on a lot of Jews-run-the-world crap. GabrielF 16:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Misc. Discussions of interest

Wikipedia talk:Single purpose account#SPA mention Not an AfD per se, but a discussion in which an inclusionist editor is attempting to get enough consensus to ban {{spa}} tags. This, of course, would be a disaster for anyone interested in nominating for AfD any article at all on any subject, since it would in essence make it against the guidelines to even bring up bad faith and obvious trolling, no matter how blatant. (See also the discussion in the section just above "SPA mention" on that page; it's roughly the same attempt by the same editor only a few days earlier. --Aaron 03:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Operation Gladio Most pages that get talked about here are candidates for AFD, this page probably is not. There is probably enough reader/user interest in Operation Gladio to justify keeping it within WP in a verifiable form. However, in its currently it fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, and just about every other WP:anything that exists. It incorporates most every European conspiracy theory that anyone has ever heard of; including some that you probably have not. It really needs a point by point review to bring it up to guidelines, especially WP:RS and WP:V. If anyone has the time or inclination…please feel free. Brimba 07:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Poll -- poll on whether to promote WP:RS to policy. One of the most egregious violations in conspiracy theory articles is their failure to cite to reliable sources, and instead, their reliance on blogsites with no editorial oversight. This is one of the most important guidelines on Wikipedia, and it deserves to be promoted to FULL POLICY. Morton devonshire 06:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

An alternative to WP:RS would be WP:ATTRIBUTE/WP:SOURCE, which should also be considered. Brimba 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Deleted

Merged

No Consensus

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_3#Template:911tm (19 deletes vs 7 keeps)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Terror Timeline (16 deletes vs 10 keeps)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/11:_Press_for_Truth (19 deletes vs 22 keeps)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site (second nomination) (21 keeps vs 21 deletes)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (I'm not even going to try to count that mess; see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Closing_rationales for closing admin's rationale)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Webster_G._Tarpley (26 deletes vs 9 keeps)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The War on Freedom - (21 deletes vs 13 keeps)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination) - (16 keeps vs 16 deletes)

Kept

Deletion Review

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_25#9-11: The Road to Tyranny -- deletion endorsed
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006 October 22#Andy Stephenson -- deletion endorsed
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October_29#Walter Andrew Stephenson -- deletion endorsed
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_4#Terrorstorm - deletion endorsed - see [2] GabrielF 22:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)