Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:13, 3 May 2011

Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a premature WP:CONTENTFORK. Any useful info should be in Death of Osama bin Laden. —Chris!_c/t 04:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You cite premature content fork. However, Death of Osama bin Laden is already a fat article, and if this article in question were only a section, within a week (about how long this AfD will last), the section would break away to Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories anyway. Why AfD so soon? Opinions to delete coming in in the next few days would be keeps if rendered a week from now as the article expands. This whole topic is likely the fastest growing of any ever on Wikipedia. I contend that this AfD is premature, not the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is premature when there are limited info on the subject. You ask why AfD so soon. I ask why create so soon? I don't understand sometimes why people can't be patience and create an article when it is necessary.—Chris!_c/t 04:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limited information, but not that limited, and it's coming in quickly. I started the article because I know there are a lot of people who will want to dump info into Wikipedia about this in the coming weeks. I didn't want them to put it in the wrong place and have it simply deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already there are numerous reliable sources on this. It could be merged to the parent article, but this content keeps being removed from Death of Osama bin Laden , so this could be used as a build area for a later merge, if that is desired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freepers, Rethugs, Birthers and Teapers need a home of their own. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Fringe theories - if it must be covered, it should get a single sentence in the main article. This article violates policies on undue weight and avoiding unnecessary splits. Neutrality^talk 05:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar I suppose you want to delete 9/11 conspiracy theories as well then? – AJL^talk 05:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar. One is a notable and complex phenomenon that has persisted over the course of years. The other is a concept discussed on a few blogs and mentioned in passing in a few newspaper articles. It's still an inappropriate content fork. Let's say someone made articles on Planning of the operation against Osama bin Laden; burial of Osama bin Laden; Osama bin Laden compound, and so forth. All of these should be discussed to the appropriate length (i.e., due weight), but that treatment should occur on the main article page. It would makes no sense at all to split them apart. So it is here. Neutrality^talk 06:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this one is likely to persist over the course of several years as well; in fact, it already has existed. The current events just make the previous -- and new -- theories more visible. – AJL^talk 06:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree. I doubt hugely whether conspiracy theories over Bin Laden's death will be of higher magnitude than 9/11. Why? Because 9/11 had consequences that many have brought to view 9/11 as an excuse for such action - i.e. War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq. Simply put, Bin Laden's death is a deliberate elimination. I suppose we are going to get the wacky conspiracy theories from the minority that Bin Laden is now hiding in a cave somewhere and as a result this page will be deserving of that. Therefore I think we should create a conspiracy theories on the death of Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley. Stevo1000 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google News search shows more than enough articles have been published about this topic (in just over 24 hours!) to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – AJL^talk 05:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weak keep, I guess. Although there is little doubt this article will be needed before too long, I suspect we may have jumped the gun a little in creating in so quickly (per recentism and, to a lesser extent, not news). Now that it's there, I think we may as well keep it. --Thepm (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change that to a strong keep. It's now official. Conservapedia's front page says "Questions are emerging now from liberals, libertarians, Tea Partiers and even a relative of a 9/11 victim about whether the killing of Bin Laden happened as claimed." I mean, even a relative. Game over for that tricky Obama (you know he's really Norwegian). --Thepm (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as of right now, I really have to agree with Neutrality (the person above me, not the policy.) At this point, this really should be discussed in either the reactions article or the main death article in an appropriate subsection. Once the section reaches an overburdening length or the theories start to mature a little, it can be spun out. I have no doubt that this article will *eventually* be necessary, but right now this set of wikipedia articles would offer more value to the reader if skepticism was discussed on either the main death page or the death reactions page. It'll take little enough work to recreate it later, and I really do think it's better for the reader covered in the main sections for now. Kevin (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable conspiracy theory. 1 Portillo (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very relevant and interesting,. Should the US goverment release unedited pictures of Bin Laden dead and development of this article stalled then Merge ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes the most sense of all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once the Obama Administration releases unedited pictures of UBL's corpse, the vast majority of the conspiracy talk will fade away. The BHO Administration will mostly likely release these photos to the public by the end of the week. There's no need for a content fork when this content merely hinges its hopes upon the BHO Administration not releasing the photos of the corpse. Rondy (talk) 0319 3 May 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for now. It's a little too early to defenestrate this article. We'll see if the theories die down or keep going. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen, none of these "theories" have any traction. By "traction", I mean serious analysis and coverage in reliable secondary sources. Page consists of WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:COATRACKing/editorializing. Abductive (reasoning) 09:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I doubt hugely whether conspiracy theories over Bin Laden's death will be of higher magnitude than 9/11. Why? Because 9/11 had consequences that many have brought to view 9/11 as an excuse for such action, hence conspiracy theories - i.e. War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq. Simply put, Bin Laden's death is an deliberate elimination. I suppose we are going to get the wacky conspiracy theories from the minority that Bin Laden is now hiding in a cave somewhere and as a result this page will be deserving of that. Therefore I think we should create a conspiracy theories on the death Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley. It would set a precedent for conspiracy theories regarding individuals. Stevo1000 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is still a topic of speculation. Lyk4 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong keep. What if everybody got all politically correct in 1963-64 and arbitrarily used their power over an important form of media and decided to erase all trace of theories concerning the assination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy as irrelevant, "inadequately sourced in mainstream media", or offensive to their sensitivities? This article is included at Wikipedia: JFK assassination conspiracy theories. No double standard just because the subject is Osama bin Laden. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Normally, I'd delete, as it seems like a clearing house for any wacko to spread their theory. Rather, I'm for keeping this page, because it will serve as a useful sociological description of people whose personal belief systems have gone off the rails. I'll be monitoring the page, and deleting anything that has the slightest whiff of crankery. --Evud (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking alot on yourself User Evud with such a threat, as that is what it is tantamount to. You can view the page and its contributors however you please: your views do not make everyone else's "crankery". Consensus in such a contentious matter is required, and be sure you will be subjected to it along with everyone else. It's the Wikipedia way in such circumstances. Being "Bold", fine for cleaning up claptrap in "trivia" sections in articles with overblown "In popular culture" headings and such is one thing; at this page it is not acceptable.Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a threat, but the fact you think it is one says more about you than me. I'm merely saying I'm going to attack contributions with poor reasoning and evidence on that page relentlessly, because poorly supported crankery -- and conspiracy theories ARE crankery (see Michael Barkun's Culture of Conspiracy and Ted Goertzel's "Belief in Conspiracy Theories") -- don't deserve to be on Wikipedia, sociological explanations and descriptions of conspiracy theories combined with rebuttals are another matter. After all, this place was founded on the Enlightenment and rational ideals of Diderot's Encyclpedia. --Evud (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Lyk4. This article is a messy aggregation of all the crankiest news available on a topic. That is not the basis of a good article. I suspect this could be a valid topic, but we should wait a few weeks until some decent reflective material is available. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There is certainly potential for expansion, and verifiability issues can be gradually improved over time. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it was created too soon, and is very spotty at the moment, but it is/will be a notable subject easily meriting it's own article. In a way, I therefore consider a deletion discussion as almost a waste of time (except that articles under dispute usually improve / improve faster...) Ingolfson (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has potential. 87.211.213.223 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 13:09, 3 May 2011 edit Ingolfson (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 35,967 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:13, 3 May 2011 edit undo 87.211.213.223 (talk) →‎Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories Next edit →
Line 38:		Line 38:

	*'''Keep'''. Yes, it was created too soon, and is very spotty at the moment, but it is/will be a notable subject easily meriting it's own article. In a way, I therefore consider a deletion discussion as almost a waste of time (except that articles under dispute usually improve / improve faster...) [[User:Ingolfson\|Ingolfson]] ([[User talk:Ingolfson\|talk]]) 13:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)		*'''Keep'''. Yes, it was created too soon, and is very spotty at the moment, but it is/will be a notable subject easily meriting it's own article. In a way, I therefore consider a deletion discussion as almost a waste of time (except that articles under dispute usually improve / improve faster...) [[User:Ingolfson\|Ingolfson]] ([[User talk:Ingolfson\|talk]]) 13:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
			* '''Keep''' It has potential. [[Special:Contributions/87.211.213.223\|87.211.213.223]] ([[User talk:87.211.213.223\|talk]]) 13:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)