Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories


 * 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. Strong consenus that it was mainly unreliable blog-work.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories
This was originally a five PROD, I'm not too sure so I'm bringing it to AfD. Yank sox  01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Speculation and a timeline of bloggers' posts. --Daniel Olsen 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Though I believe Wikipedia should definitely try to include as much info as possible. This really appears to be nothing more than information taken from very unreliable sources. This article also fails in the sense that it uses unreliable sources to make very unsubstantiable and very inflammatory remarks. The likely motivation for the quotes that were made were likely racist in nature (not the contributor who posted this article, but the quotes used in the statements). An article that is heavily dependant on quotes like these from unreliable sources which are heavily POV generally fails to meet the NPOV requirement, even if the article itself is not giving any credibility to these quotes. This is because posting these quotes gives inherent credibility, and no attempt has been made to counteract the statements. I feel the article should deleted due it s inherent inflammatory nature, and the fact almost no real facts are presented as support. Nlsanand 04:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorta weak Delete Seems unverifiable to me (speculation?) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This has been mentioned on mainstream press, has verified images, etc. It's as much an entry as 9/11 CT's. Yossiea 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The noteworthy parts of this article can already be found in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies. Korny O&#39;Near 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If we delete this, we must delete the page on 9/11 conspiracy theories. If anything, there seems to be more evidence supporting the Qana CTs than the 9/11 CTs.  If we delete ALL pages referencing ANY conspiracy theories on any subject, then I would support deleting this one.  Valtam  14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this should normally be merged, but there is enough information here that it merits an article of it's own. - Blood red sandman 16:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge I disagree, Blood red sandman. A significant amount of the article shouldn't be kept at all. The sources are blogs, and news stations citing blogs. Merge into 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies per Korny O'Near. Picaroon9288|ta co 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Mukadderat 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nlsanand, whatever verifiable claims exist can be (and generally have been) moved to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies.  Tewfik Talk 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, we keep other articles that just restate arguments pro- & con- in the Mideast: Allegations of Israeli apartheid, for example. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a blog aggregator or a mostly indiscriminate collection of allegations. Individual parts can be merged into the controversies article linked to above. Sandstein 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Nlsnand and Sandstein. This compilation of blogs etc. is pure original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tewfik --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I haven't seen any media sources the place I live carry stories about Qana being a conspiracy. Besides, there are conspiracy theories for every event that takes place; we can't keep including them in WP. --Bluerain (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While elements of the article are not OR and the matter has been mentioned in at least two reliable sources, Yedioth Ahronoth and the Jerusalem Post, Bluerain is correct in that conspiracy theories about everything exist. Since the vast majority of the article currently cites blogs which don't meet WP:RS and is largely original research, we would not lose much by deleting this version of the article and making a new article later if such conspiracy theories become more prominent. Userfication might also make sense if the user wants to work on it make it less OR and more WP:RS/WP:V compliant (as well as possibly finding more sources pointing to notability). JoshuaZ 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-reliable sources. A small mention of these theories as reported by reliable sources is already available at Qana_airstrike ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR, WP:WING, Vancarlimospacecraft, and whatever other shortcuts can be thrown at this. In my opinion, this pales in comparison with 9/11 conpiracy theories, most of which are non-notable in themselves, but some have entered mainstream psyche. This was a small event for which concpiracy theories are just more grist for the bloggospheric mill, not Wikipedia. Avi 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nlsanand. Bibigon 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The reliable parts of this article can and somewhat are covered in other articles currently. ---Xcrem 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jayjg and SlimVirgin. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Korny O'Near. --tickle me 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge merge the reliable sources into the relevant articles and ensure that sources are not blogs. --Ben Houston 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I am having trouble finding any part of this article that is not in volation of NOR. Instead of merging it (subtracting all OR, that would leave us with nothing to merge) with good articles let´s just keep improving good articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Slrubenstein says, I think this article is basically unrecoverable. It's just a compilation of blogospheric speculation and violates all of the fundamental Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NOR etc). The random rantings of bloggers who possess an inflated sense of self-importance are patently not a fit subject for an encyclopedia. -- ChrisO 23:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jayjg and SlimVirgin. Evolver of Borg 03:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This needs a re-write and a serious effort to shorten it.  However it has as much accuracy as the plethora 2004 US election articles.  If deleted, it will just come back in many places. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.63.236.141 (talk • contribs) 13:47, August 31, 2006   (UTC)
 * Delete per Jayjg and SlimVirgin, above. Nothing else to say. Just the current minor footnote in the Qana airstrike page is enough. --Planetary 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the mere fact that there are conspiracy theories is, I suppose, important and interesting to readers, but the details are vagues and mostly speculation. Even the IDF doesn't promote these theories.  There are two paragraphs about the conspiracy theories on the 2006 Qana airstrike article that more or less sums up the general feel of this longer article.--GHcool 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- Conspiracy theories are indicative of political tendencies. Moreover, they are part of human cultural heritage.  To strike them from Wikipedia would serve only thouse who want to turn WP in uniform grey, politically correct color.  -- Tiphareth 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete -- as per Jayjg. The evidence is flimsy and the sources are unreliable.--Kitrus 11:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete As before: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; not a source that controversial bloggers should want to point to to 'justify' conspiracy theories. The fact that media report on theories in blogs does not make them true. Let bloggers stick to blogging, let encyclopaedia's stick to proven truths. PP, 3 sept. 06
 * 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.