Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama citizenship 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   keep. Per WP:SNOW.  Sandstein  11:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

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

WP:FRINGE article. About a third of the length of the parent article Barack Obama. It's a coatrack that seems to attack the conspiracy theory, but is really giving it a bit of credence. Sceptre (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - We have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, so why can't we have one on this. I'd agree that this needs trimming per WP:COATRACK, but that doesn't mean we need to delete it. - NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "What about article X?" is not a good argument. Whereas the 9/11 truthers have some sort of traction, the "proponents" of this conspiracy theory are mostly disgruntled conservatives and the ilk. Where WAX would apply would be to conspiracy theories about the 2000 election (and there are plenty). Sceptre (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference to 9/11 was just an example. But this article is fairly well sourced and has received attention in the national media. This article requires shortening, not deletion, - NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  05:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, we could give this due weight with a mention of a sentence or two somewhere near the bottom of another article. Putting a full article on this, complete with details on each variant and each doomed court case, makes it seem far less fringe than it actually is. It's effectively a POV fork where these theories are detailed in far more detail than we should be giving, or would be giving if they were merged in somewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, delete later This article was basically created as a dumping ground for the various nonsense theories about Obama's citizenship. If and when all the court cases are finally settled, a small summary (as with the McCain article) would suffice within the Obama article. Until then, I do not recommend deleting it, as it will just go back to edit-warring on the Obama article. Leave it be for now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, unfortunately. Yes, a sordid topic that is certain to attract controversy and possible POV pushing, so would have to be watched closely. However, the subject of the article (conspiracy theories regarding Obama's citizenship) has received very substantial (in fact massive) coverage in mainstream news-sources and it is clear that it will not go away anytime soon. There is too much information here to properly cover in any of the possible parent articles, so a separate article is warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now But open to later redirection or AFD. There are a LOT of sources that need a closer look, and as a shameless fan of the man (never been a secret) I'm inclined to say DELETE, but the stupid idea has gone to the Supreme Court giving it obviously *possible* notability. But the Supremes decline a *LOT* of cases, so that is a worthless metric for notability. I'm concerned the article is a bad coatrack, as these things tend to be. rootology  ( C )( T ) 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not hard to file a case with the Supes: it gets about 7500 of them a year, and hears about 150. The Supes deciding not to hear a case, without comment, is not prima facie one whit notable. PhGustaf (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The conservative-leading "Supremes" even have their own theme song now: "Stop in the Name of Law". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep for now Reluctant Keep per above. It's unfortunate to maintain a page as a loon magnet, though. PhGustaf (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and be done with it - I was against this article's creation from the beginning, and only reluctantly dropped in on it in the last few days to confirm how bad I thought it would be going. It is a cesspool of all the tinfoil nuttery that was unfit for the main Barack Obama page, essentially a WP:FORK. Tarc (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject matter is unmistakeably a subject of continuing notoriety in mainstream media, and maintaining this separate article is by far the best way to deal with the subject on Wikipedia.  This issue was discussed at considerable length at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and the conclusions there are still valid: the issue isn't going away, it is still getting coverage in mainstream media, it performs a genuine public service for Wikipedia to maintain an unbiased article carefully itemizing the allegations and their refutations, and it provides a place to redirect (and then delete where appropriate) a bunch of material that otherwise keeps mucking up other Obama articles.  Moreover, given the subject matter, the article is managing to stay remarkably well-written and direct, thanks in particular to the heroic efforts of certain editors who have invested a lot of time to make this work.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the article is working out just as the guys on that thread planned. Good work; sometimes the best solution to a problem is the least bad one. PhGustaf (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * keep. references are a clear indication of wp:n. Jessi1989 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to something like debates rather than conspiracy theories; certainly in the news now, and with questions also having been raised about John McCain and the canal zone it's notable. JJL (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference. There was no dispute about where McCain was born, only over the perfectly fair question of whether he qualified as a natural born citizen. The Obama stuff goes well beyond that, taking on the character of the typical conspiracy theory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep although i think its a hoax and Mr Obama is a citizen, it should be kept on the fact that there is a controversy and it is well documented and the article clearly states a number of sources --173.102.179.194 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is certainly notable. I would prefer if the expression "conspiracy theories" was not used. I think "allegations" or "accusations" would be better. However I'm sure that this has been hashed around on the talk page and not something I feel like wasting time on.Redddogg (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yeah, the theories and lawsuits detailed in the article are crackpot, but as a political phenomenon they are more than well enough known to merit an article. There are plenty of other articles that do and should exist about other fringe theories.  As long as the article does not endorse the accuracy of the conspiracy folks discussed (and it doesn't now, nor has it since its creation), a discussion about the topic is useful and encyclopedic.  LotLE × talk  07:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is utter lunacy, but this is a clearly notable (though stupid) phenomenon. Grand  master  ka  07:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep provided we do not have to resort to editing in blood to improve the article. Otherwise, this is plainly notable as shown above. Otherwise, the sources check out in the article and per above. MuZemike  ( talk ) 08:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeep. A widely covered and unquestionably notable topic. The fact that the subject matter is fringey is neither here nor there; we have an entire category of articles on fringe and conspiracy theories. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. First and foremost I believe that an effort to delete is simply an extension of the often repeated argument "it's all nonsense and nuttery, now shut up about it". Wikipedia should be a presentation of knowledge and facts even if it's something we don't particularly like or agree with... and sweeping a difficult issue under the rug out of partisanship is no way to handle it. Personally I would like to see the issue noted on Obama's main page, but it would appear that efforts to "make it go away" were successful there. Let's not make it go away here too. The subject is legitimate, it's barely even a conspiracy theory and it's as notable as anything else for an encyclopedia of knowledge. Jbarta (talk) 08:59, 21 December 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.