Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories (2nd nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. The nominator states that: "Actually the closing was proper but the result was wrong, there was a general consensus on deleting the article. The problem is that it was closed and nobody challenged it. That's why it was nominated again for deletion." Deletion review is that way. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a second proposal for the deletion of this page. I believe it is important to delete this page since there is not such a thing as Conspiracy Theory regarding an event as an earthquake. The scientific grounds on tectonic plates are very clear. The so called theories are nothing but not notable gossip invented by some yellow-journalism newspapers in Europe. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to 2010 Haiti earthquake The article by itself seems to be a single compilation of gossip.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep- When the admin who closed it orignially said it should be re-evaluated at a later date, I'm betting they were thinking of something a little farther off than 6 days after the last one closed. No matter how good faith the nomination is, it still reeks of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Wait a few months, then lets look at it then. Until then, we just don't have the perspective to gain any sort of consensus. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The time since the last AfD is irrelevant. The article has been substantially revised since then.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per Umbralcorax.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I didn't comment at the last debate and, if i did, I would not have supported the retention of the page.  But the argument for this nomination is invalid.  There can be a "conspiracy theory regarding an event such as earthquake" - someone just has to make one up.  The real question is whether such a theory is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.  Arguing the science (and proving the conspiracy theory wrong) doesn't, in itself, exclude the theory from inclusion in the encyclopedia.  If this develops into a extended debate, I may later add my view on the articles notability.  But, in acknowledgement of Umbralcorax's point above, I will wait and see.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean invalid? Who can take seriously the statement of conspiracy theory regarding an earthquake? I mean, maybe if it was an old hypothesis that had been part of some ancient culture or maybe something that overtime grew to become a real "theory". But the truth of the matter here is that some guy wrote a conspiracy theory story in a website or newspaper and then the hype of the event (the earthquake in Haiti) brought some attention to such, but this is no more than a gathering of links to gossip like stories that are not to be taken seriously. I mean, look, I am kind of an inclusionist, I hate proposing deletion of articles, but I mean, come on, this goes against common sense, you don't have to evoke any Wikipedia guideline to realize the article is per se a joke. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. I didn't mean that the argument itself is invalid.  It's an invalid reason for deletion.  The craziest conspiracy theory can be notable if it gets enough coverage in indpendent sources.  I'm not arguing that's the case here either - just pointing out that sanity of the theory is irrelevant to the debate.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't find the nominator's arguments particularly compelling but I do think the article should be deleted. In fact, I think that the first AfD (closed as "no consensus") should have resulted in deletion and the arguments I made there still stand. On the other hand, some of the "keep" votes were based on the now-debunked rumour that Hugo Chavez gave credence to the HAARP nonsense. I'd also like to note that in the past week (since the first AfD's close), the only significant contributors to the article are Feudonym, Pontificalibus and myself. We all supported deletion, yet we're the only ones who care enough to turn the article into something which isn't quite the embarrassing piece of junk it was. The fact remains that it's an article on an ill-defined topic and serves only to hold marginal stuff that no other self-respecting article deems of any significance. We should recognize that the HAARP and IDF conspiracies described here are not conspiracy theories about the Haitian earthquake specifically but recurring conspiracy theories about HAARP and the IDF that pop up during, respectively, any earthquake and any IDF operation. I suppose we could create Israel Defense Forces conspiracy theories though I seriously doubt it would stand any chance at AfD. Wikipedia has no obligation to maintain articles for the sole reason that it contains something that can be referenced from somewhere and it has no obligation to track the flavour of the month on the conspiracy blogosphere. Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep 2010_Haiti_earthquake_conspiracy_theories has been viewed 13535 times in 201002. Where else would this info go? Helped explain the resignation of Jenny Tonge]. 93.96.148.42 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC).
 * We gotta thank God you don't even have a username dude.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The nummber of times a page has been viewed is in no way evidence of notability.  This is discussed in the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically mentioned at WP:POPULARPAGE.  Keep and delete arguments should address Wikipedia policy which relates to notability and wether the articles contents can be verified.  Cheers, Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the article is linked to from 2010 Haiti earthquake which obviously has seen quite a bit of traffic, the page views are not really a surprised. More relevant and harder to measure is how many of these pageviews resulted in readers rolling their eyes wondering why this even had a spot on Wikipedia. And I'll say it again: if people are so enamoured with this article that they can't fathom its deletion, then they should roll-up their sleeves and maintain it instead of leaving that work to people forced to waste time on it because they care about Wikipedia's credibility. Pichpich (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ditch the ad hominem. The organ scandal conspiracy story is news, and has been reported by reliable sources - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8513662.stm - where else would it be covered? 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Response): Well, Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, so that argument doesn't really hold.  And, if it's notable, it could be part of the main article.  I'm not sure which ad hominem argument you refer to.  I don't see any on this page!  Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Plenty of reliable sources - eg all UK newspapers - have referenced the organ thing. A politican has been sacked for taking it seriously. Maybe it would be better in the main article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep cannot be deleted for WP:GFDL editor contribution history reasons. A portion of this page was split off and merged to Operation Unified Response. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Octagon-warning.svg am gonna have to ask you to refrain from such argument. If that was the case then anybody could write anything and protect it from deletion because of the GFDL argument. So no, that cant be taken into consideration, deletion or no deletions is achieved by consensus. thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because this ONLY applies when work is transferred from one article to another, and it is kept at the other article. It can NEVER apply to cases where no work is transferred, or it is not supposed to be on the other article and is removed for that case. (This does not mean that the article need to remain an article, only that it should not be deleted. A redirect also preserves edit history) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: What on earth does WP:GFDL got to do with this debate?  Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a number of ways in which the GFDL issue can be addressed. Yes, the simplest is to keep the article but it's not the only one and GFDL should never be the central reason for keeping an article. Pichpich (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Fringe theories surrounding the 2010 Haiti earthquake since some of the wacky ideas about it have no conspiracies. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: In which case WP:FRINGE, almost by definition, would apply!  Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fringe theory in a nutshell:
 * In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has been covered in quite a few media outlets by now, including foreign-language ones. I plan on expanding this article sometime soon I expanded this article with information about the "Big Oil" conspiracy theories; quite a few people have been claiming that the real reason the US is in Haiti is because it wants to secretly take their oil. These theories are not going away. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles are not kept on the basis of expansion, so you are welcome to write as much as you want. The article is a collection of gossip-like stories (wrongly called here theories). If we were to leave articles because other people wrote an article about it in some website then Wikipedia would be just a collection of links.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep for procedural reasons and substantively. WP:DRV is the place to appeal, but not here.  There are plenty of sources and information now, even if not at the time of the first AfD.  Let it go for a few months, when with more perspective, consensus might change.  But the close was proper. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the closing was proper but the result was wrong, there was a general consensus on deleting the article. The problem is that it was closed and nobody challenged it. That's why it was nominated again for deletion. So, yes, this is the right place to reach consensus on the deletion of the article.Let me add, so far there is no logical explanation on why this article should be kept. There are some procedural reasons exposed, but that actually weakens the reason why it should be kept. The article is notable only as a gossip and not a factual oriented story. It started when it was said that Chavez accused the US for the earthquake, but this was later on debunked. So anything else is made up imagination. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "there was a general consensus on deleting the article..." No there wasn't. Look at that discussion again, it was pretty much an even split. Also, many of the people on the "delete" side of the aisle had different reasons for wanting the article deleted. When the folks who want the article deleted can't even agree on why it should be deleted, that is not consensus. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Teetering between procedural keep per above and delete as a load of fringe hogwash based on the rantings of pov-pushing types such as the Iranian regime.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep With the number of RS on this topic, we will need to put the info somewhere. I think having a subpage makes wp look less "crazy" than if we put a shorter summary version of this info, on the main haiti earthquake page... but I either way we can't just get rid of this many RS's, even if some of the other cites are not RS. Also I think people are forgetting that while the HAARP story has moved in a tabloid direction, it was originally reported in an RS fashion, no matter how much en-lang wp might be tempted to discount venezuelan and russian sources. IE: if it was a different story about military current affairs, say tu-95 flights down the US east coast between vz and rus, no one would question the RS provenance, with the same reporting chain (northern fleet reports in venezualan media, then picked up by others), its only when the military reporting puts the usa in a more negative light, that people start complaining... it is also good that we have this section, so we can verifiably DEBUNK the chavez video. That is also a public service done by keeping this page, because not everyone will otherwise know the falseness of that video. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2010 (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.

Closing
I would like to challenge the closing of this AfD proposal. People need at least 30 days to reach consensus. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply that is never the case at AfD. That only happens for WP:RFCs - AfDs are listed for a week, and then sometimes relisted for another week, but it is never standard practice to list it for more than a week. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)