Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13 Illuminati Bloodlines


 * 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 of the debate was delete.  Sango  123   17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

13 Illuminati Bloodlines
This article has no reliable sources, despite the original author saying that there will be improvements, and reads like original research. Kevin 10:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatantly fails WP:NOR and WP:V. --Coredesat 10:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why too afraid to look into dark corners of the world? Too bad, accept this article for what it is currently... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinyu (talk • contribs)


 * Delete as above and because WP:NOT a soapbox for conspiracycruft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete blah blah blah --Blog Mav Rick 17:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Sources given (external links) are mostly the same site. Ifnord 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultra Strong Keep Well perhaps if you people DO SOMETHING INSTEAD OF TALKING ALL DAY, THIS ARTICLE WOULD NOT BE AN AfD - pure hypocricy on part of Wikipedians...what you think there is only one author, and that is it? Too bad, keep it. Btw - I started this article, and I do not want this effort of mine to down the drain. --Lord X 19:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu
 * Delete before the Owl Worshipping Lizards take over the Cabal....... Oh, and this article is conspirloon nonsense doktorb | words 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is what you think. Don't underestimate my sources. It is NOT NONSENSE, only nonsense to you because either your mind is not open enough to strange things, or are too lazy to expand it yourself - mind the rude truth, but...wait? Truth hurts, doesn't IT?--Lord X 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu
 * hey! whats wrong with us owl-worshipping lizards ruling everything? :)  BL Lacertae -  kiss the lizard  00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete because strange things require extraordinary evidence and there doesn’t seem to be any. (Also because it fails WP:V.) —xyzzyn 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, why don't you people also do some research too...and expand this article hey? Is it because you hate me? You probably do, so you would never accept what I say. But what I say is not important is it? Well too bad, KEEP THIS ARTICLE...I AM WORKING ON IT ALREADY. --Lord X 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu
 * IF we have an article on conspiracy theories, then it is also necassary to give further evidence of conspiracy theories...don't you agree? --Lord X 20:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu
 * Why don't you people help rather than sitting around wanting this to be rid of? Change the policy if you have to...cold hard reasoning doesn't work with me--Lord X 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu


 * Delete per every deletion vote above mine (with the possible exception of "blah blah blah") It's OR, it's completely unverifiable, it's kind of nonsensical, and, as Angus said, it's using WP as a soapbox for said unverifiably nonsensical OR. -- Kicking222 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you study enough conspiracies, you'd realize that since a minor population only believes in them, its either too difficult to PHYSICALLY prove it, or its just beyond the leap of evidence. That is where Wikipedia has failed - its failure to address common sense, whichi I hope it has an article on, if not, that would be sad. But conspiracies are hidden too well to be, "verified," to the point where everyone would accept it. It is not OR. How many times do I have to tell you people? Are you all that ignorant of the task that lies ahead of would-be edittors who wants this article? Use common sense. --Lord X 22:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu


 * Speedy Delete fails WP:NPOV, and is devolving into rants from OP. --DarkAudit 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per the above. Fails WP:OR.  There are plenty of more appropriate venues for the author to express his theories to his heart's content. Tevildo 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. I'd rather not give a reason, as the author seems to be jumping on jumping on everyone's back that does so. tmopkisn tlka 23:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Konstable 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Common sense tells me to Delete this article as unverifable conspiracy theory. Fan1967 23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but only because my masters are telling me to. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If the editors involved with this article would care to add references to verifiable and reputable third party sources - for example, something from a reliable publisher that was not written by Fritz Springmeier - then we'll all see the error of our ways (assuming our "programming" has not made us blind to the obvious). Currently, my programming tells me that this is an unverifiable conspiracy theory. Funnily enough, Springmeier's book is notoriously lacking in substantial notes and references too. --DaveG12345 00:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tin Foil Helmet Delete - how can Bush not be on there? Two presidents and a governor?  BigDT 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The usual theory is that they were recruited through Skull & Bones, which is actually a secret arm of the Illuminati, rather than being from the bloodlines. Fan1967 02:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure original research, which the author doesn't really deny... Just look at his userpage. Grand  master  ka  20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All of you Suck, you have no idea what is really going on. You all lack common sense to the simplest of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinyu (talk • contribs)


 * Delete While I may suck, the author says that is unverifiable and that reasoning doesn't work with him. Since discussion and reason are the basis of wikipedia, this doesn't really fit. Ace of Sevens 00:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I give up on this argument, just DO IT--Lord X 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu
 * ps. I apologize Wikipedians for my arrogance and, "so uncivilized," manner...--Lord X 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu


 * Delete per nominator and the numerous pastel colored boxes gracing the article. Yamaguchi先生 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.