Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina


 * 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 keep. Regardless of the accuracy or folly of these "theories", they exist, and they continue to garner substantial mainstream media attention. Spike Lee's HBO film When the Levees Broke is a good example. The article needs some cleanup, but its presence improves the encyclopedia. Krakatoa Katie  17:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article really doesn't serve any purpose at all except to talk about supposed "conspiracy theories". There are serious NPOV issues with the article. There are few reliable sources in the article. Wikipedia is not a blog or a personal sounding board. Need I talk about anything else? Dr. Cash 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Just chock full of POV junk, and has no purpose other than agenda-pushing. Jmlk  1  7  07:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As article shows, various persistant rumors, theories, and common misconceptions have gotten considerable media attention. Article provides some context, analysis, and in some appropriate instances debunking. Room for improvement, but a useful article. -- Infrogmation 07:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are barely any reliable sources. Most of the links are to blogs and even forums.  Not to mention major WP:NPOV issues. ---CWY2190TC 08:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly unsourced POV conspiracycruft. I see no way this could possibly be useful, and Wikipedia is not a blog. --Core desat 08:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utter failure of WP:NPOV's text on "undue weight". "Opinions" of such people as Fred Phelps mean nothing. Conspiracy theories lack foundation. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While everyone knows the weather is controlled by Martian Jews and Venusian Republicans from their secret undersea base on the dark side of the Moon, perhaps this could be a decent article allowing such drivel to be firmly debunked. Such theories, although entirely wacky, do exist. Nick mallory 11:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete it's hilarious but not exactly encyclopediodic--Pheonix15 12:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This article is of sufficient quality to be kept. I think this AFD is merely attempt to white-wash over what really happened in August of 2005. --EAEB 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The whole basis of this article is synthesis Corpx 15:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because so long as everything is cited, this article concerns a fairly notable disaster that has indeed been the focus of all kinds of alternate theories. Just consider the following, for example:, , , etc.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If an article has to depend on references to snopes to keep it alive, it should probably be deleted. Other references in the article, like franklinavenue.blogspot.com, godhatesfags.com, or newsfromthefridge.typepad.com, are rather "embarassing" sources, and don't even come close to meeting the standards of WP:RS. Dr. Cash 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you purposely ignoring the Nature, The Guardian, TIME, CNN, and MSNBC sources? --Pixelface 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It needs severe editorial pruning and improvement, since it contains both plausible theories, such as "global warming makes hurricanes more severe" but dismisses it with the unsourced statement "Most climatologists today believe that the relationship between climate change and hurricane intensity is unproven, and that the increase in hurricane activity noted over the last 20 years, can be accounted for by factors other than climate change such as the 25-40 year cycle." Then it talks about God causing the hurricane, or conspirators with weather control machines controlling it, and mixes it in with discussions of conspirators blowing up levees to flood the black neighborhoods. So widely reported conspiracy theories are entitled to a balanced discussion, even if their truth is dubious, but the article should not be a grab bag of notions that are not held only by a tiny fringe group. Wikipedia, like Snopes, can serve a debunking function. Edison 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Snopes is not an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not Snopes. We're not here to debunk this type of junk, nor should we be providing space for conspiracy theories and wackos to post this nonsense. Dr. Cash 20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you may want to nominate the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations article for deletion next. --Pixelface 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - the NPOV claims are bogus, the article lists various theories most of which contradict the others. If undue weight was applied to one or other, then that would obviously be an issue. In practice, it's a good strong article, I was surprised to read it after reading the comments here. It collects together a large number of related issues and presents them in a fairly unbiased, well written, way. It gives a good historical picture of the reactions to Katrina and its aftermath. I'm bewildered, to be honest, that there's so much support for its deletion. Have all you guys read the article, or did you get no further than the title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squiggleslash (talk • contribs) 15:45, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
 * Claiming this this isn't POV is bogus; it's ignoring the greater issue with keeping this kind of crap on wikipedia. Dr. Cash 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no POV issues. The claims listed are POV, but the article does not deal with them in a POV manner. Citations look good, may need editing - as does most of Wikipedia. MarkBul 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious?! The citations, for one, are in horrible shape! Mainly just a bunch of external links, and many of them blogs and personal accounts. Hardly what I'd call, "journalism". Dr. Cash 19:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The initial purpose of this article was to keep a wide variety of fringe theories from popping up in the "mainstream" article on Hurricane Katrina. It has served that function well, and (so long as interest in Hurricane Katrine keeps riding high, will continue to do so). Cheers! bd2412  T 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that it's now two years later, I don't see this as a problem. The main article on Hurricane Katrina is featured, and this article has been largely ignored, as it's just a bunch of hogwash theories and bullcrap,... Dr. Cash 19:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ! Aw, banana oil sez you. :-) Take some time to check it out, and you will find that the article deals with topics which have been repeatedly raised in television, documentaries, leading main stream magazines, newspapers, etc. Some portions of the article handle them rather well. You may, for example, consider the suggestion of deliberately blown up levees hogwash-- but you'll find it hard to to spend any time talking with or reading first hand accounts of people who lived through it in the Lower 9th Ward without encountering that impression repeatedly. The article gives good background on why many people suspect that while pointing out the lack of evidence that such actually happened. -- Infrogmation 21:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article is still heavily POV with nonreliable sources, written like a blog entry, which Wikipedia is not. This is simply conspiracycruft. --Core desat 21:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge a portion of global warming awareness-raising to and also Merge the sourced portion of God's wrath back to main article as per style of . The hurricane did spur discussion about global warming and how/why a deity might allow such a disaster to happen. Delete the rest. Canuckle 21:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't merge and delete as that would be a GFDL violation. --Core desat 21:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Canuckle 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While it certainly needs major cleanup, this could potentially become a very good article and has some content worth keeping. Jedibob5 00:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Potentially anything could become a good article. However, the vast majority of this content is POV, and we don't keep POV things. --Core desat 21:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV recommends "facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." If the majority of this content is POV, then clean it up with an eye to WP:Undue weight. And if the remaining minority is NPOV, fold it back into the main article. Canuckle 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly keep a very weak keep because the present article is one of the more confused major WP articles I have seen--the first part discusses the general relationship between possible global warming and the increase in hurricanes, which is at least a rational hypothesis, though it has no specific relation to this specific hurricane. . the second discusses whether God brought it about in retaliation for the sins of New Orleans or the nation in general--a different type of hypothesis altogether, and not capable of being settled one way or another by human evidence. The third discusses whether some of the flooding was deliberate, yet a third completely different sort of theory that is at least capable of proof or refutation. This has to be divided and rewritten not to be a farce. DGG (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the "intentional weather manipulation with space rays" theory. The global warming stuff is becoming more mainstream, but at the time of the storm there were howls of protest and edit wars against including global warming in the main "Hurricane Katrina" article. Cheers! bd2412  T 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Canuckle and possibly split per reasons by DGG. This is a bit of a "Jack of all trades" article. Some information is credible but a lot is crackpot. Thin Arthur 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but I think it needs a major rewrite. Much of the article seems to give undue weight to fringe theories, but I do see some sources like The Guardian, Nature, TIME, CNN, and MSNBC. I think there should be an attempt to salvage the article based on any sources deemed reliable. We have other articles on alternative theories . This article could be seen as a POV fork, although it may also just be a spinoff of the Hurricane Katrina article. Moving certain theories to this page instead of the Hurricane Katrina article might not be a good effort to represent a neutral point of view, although having this article could be seen as an attempt to represent views fairly. It seems like the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations article exists to debunk various theories. We have the articles Titanic alternative theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think the rumors about the levees in New Orleans may be notable, as they were widely reported in the mainstream media in the U.S. It looks to me like some of these theories are significant and have been published in reliable sources. The title of the page "Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina" could be seen as biased, but at least the word "conspiracy" isn't in the title. --Pixelface 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, as long as article is maintained, and more effort is made to stress that these are not widely-accepted theories. I remember hearing about many of these on fairly mainstream media, they got the coverage and sparked the debate needed to be considered notable in my book, even though everyone knows that they were untrue. Just because something is crackpot doesn't mean it isn't encyclopaedic, per Pixelface's examples, and other stuff like Flat Earth Society and Christianity etc.. Jdcooper 14:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm seeing a lot of keeps, that mainly come with recommendations to salvage the article and try to revive it. But looking at it's edit history, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the past couple of months in actually editing it, so I'm beginning to doubt why so many people are interested in it now, after editing interest has seriously dwindled down and the article still looks like crap. Maybe some of you folks that are pushing for it's revival to salvage it should be bold and make some of these changes yourselves. Dr. Cash 06:07, 2 September 2007 (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.