Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative theories regarding the CIA leak scandal


 * 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.-Wafulz (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative theories regarding the CIA leak scandal

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a coatrack - it strings together various bits about Plamegate to make it seem like a coherent "alternative theory" about it exists - which does not appear to be the case. It's also a soapbox. Moreover, some of the sources it relies on are highly suspect - WorldNetDaily, freerepublic.com, and at least 9 blogs and self-published sources. Given that, and the uncited claims (think BLP concerns), and the fact that not every rumour deserves its place here, especially when we already have a giant article on Plamegate itself, deletion appears the best option. Biruitorul (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. WillOakland (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Creating an "alternative theories" article is a typical approach to remove alternative theories from main article, as in case of John Kennedy assassination theories, for example. This should not be deleted as long as sourced. Problems with specific sources is not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. However: a) one is the assassination of the most powerful man on earth, the other, the outing of a CIA operative (and anyway the latter article is about 100 kb longer already); b) once you've removed the "bad" sources, you're essentially left with a string of Washington Post quotes, a lot of uncited material, and some Wikipedians' "analysis" of those quotes, all served up in the guise of an article. However, given that the article lacks a coherent thesis and evidence that third-party sources have considered these "theories" in any sort of totality -- that they were not simply synthetized to seem like a legitimate topic, not to mention the source issues and such -- I think we're better off doing away with it. Biruitorul (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like a POV fork to me. If teher's anything of value, merge it instead. JJL (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. We already have an article on the Plame affair.  If any of these theories is notable they should be mentioned there, not in a separate article which gives undue weight to them. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as the very name of the article shows that it's a POV fork.--Berig (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * delete Concerns about original research and possible WP:BLP concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per JJL, anything reasonable can be merged elsewhere, but the title inherently suggests both original research and POV fork. WilliamH (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete if JoshuaZ voted delete, it shows how bad the article is Sceptre (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2008 (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.