Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama citizenship 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   keep per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

FRINGE theory article. The reasons from the previous nomination still apply, most notably the level of detail; at 55KB, it is longer than Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (52KB). While yes, it has ninety-four sources, that's the problem. Articles that push a POV often overload with sources to give a veneer of verifiability. And yes, while it is notable by the GNG, when it comes to fringe theories, we need to apply a much stricter standard of notability: the birth certificate thing was debunked, SCOTUS declined to hear any of the cases, and not one Representative objected to his confirmation. Not one. As a result, Obama was inaugurated successfully (if I recall, some people elected to keep the article until the inauguration). Compare to Dubya: The margin of victory had the full recount gone ahead is debated (from Bush by 1,000 to Gore by 600), SCOTUS had to arbitrate the matter, and twenty Representatives objected to his confirmation. Again, we say more about this bullshit theory than the other bullshit theory. I think we should do the right thing and get rid of this article; it makes Wikipedia look bad pandering to the tinfoil hats. Sceptre (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  04:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  04:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  04:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject is obviously a moot point as the Supreme Court Chief Justice has sworn him in, but the subject of the article is notable and the debate about his citizenship did actually happen, people did question it and others did call it a conspiracy (Fox News comes to mind as providing coverage of it in Europe). I'd even go so far as to say this was a WP:SNOW keep.  fr33k man   -s-  04:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't FOX News in Europe just a feed of the US channel? In any case, using FOX in discussion of this theory is like using MSNBC in discussion of the Florida theories. Sceptre (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk like that will get you named Worst Person in the World. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a feed of the normal US Fox. The point is that the theory exists and is notable; that doesn't make it true (which, in my opinion it isn't; I think it's stupid). We don't decide if something is true, only if it is notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia and the fact that there were a large enough bunch of people who were/are believers of it, is enough to have it here. Take care  fr33k man   -s-  07:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is clearly notable, as the nominator acknowledges. Like any "conspiracy theories" article which documents idiotic nonsense spewed by morons who choose to ignore facts/logic/reason, there is a proper way to go about writing the article while carefully avoiding the promotion of said theories. I think this article does an ok job of that and I disagree with the author's assertion that we are pandering to the tinfoilers. This article conclusively destroys these conspiracy theories by presenting the information in a neutral manner. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the batshittery and/or obscurity of this theory is proven by the fact that no Representatives objected to his confirmation. Let me say that again. No Representatives objected to his confirmation. Not even the representatives for UT-3, AL-6, and TX-11, the three most conservative regions in the entire country. If none of the sane dyed-in-the-wool conservatives saw Obama as ineligible, it really says something. Sceptre (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the stupidity of the theories; they are extremely silly. I just disagree that the ridiculousness of a theory is a reason to delete its article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is. Quote Jimbo, Sep. 2003: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Sceptre (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that's a bit different from saying that a fringe theory isn't worthy of inclusion because it is extremely stupid. For what it's worth, I disagree that the Obama conspiracies are so uncommonly believed as to merit deletion and I think the verifiable information provided in the article backs up my assertion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * People are generally smart enough not to fall for bullshit like this. The article indicates we have... five state representatives who subscribe to the theory. If we set a lower bound of the number of elected legislators in the US, at state level, at 7,500, that's less than a tenth of a percent. In other words, obscure. Very obscure. Sceptre (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I counted it up. 7275 at state level, 535 at federal level. Including undecided seats. That's 0.68% of state senators. Sceptre (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort on your part, but I remain unconvinced. Politicians are smarter (or at least ought to be) than normal people and are less likely to buy into this nonsense. I would bet that you can find similar numbers of adherents to 9/11 conspiracy theories among politicians. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice save, there. And the reason you'd see similar numbers of adherents is because it'd be political suicide to subscribe to a belief that 9/11 was an inside job. However, it's not political suicide to subscribe to this theory. In fact, were it notable, I'd see a larger number, consisting of politicians playing party politics. Sceptre (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be political suicide to believe in this crapola. At this point, it's probably best to disengage. I understand your point but I disagree, and I don't see an agreement forthcoming. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  05:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep. My first instinct was "what a load of crap". However since Wikipedia does see fit to cover creationism, Flat Earth Society and Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories I suppose "loads of crap" are a suitable topic for an encyclopedia when they are significant movements that have been noted by reliable sources. This article does in fact seem to be a documentation of such a movement. It is not as though it lends any credit to those who believe this, the article makes it clear that these claims have been dismissed by pretty much anyone who matters. Chillum  05:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Way to pick weak examples: creationism is a straw man; FES could be easily merged into Flat Earth (and I think, might just get a pass as it's an organisation); and the Apollo moon landing theories are one of the most famous unproven conspiracy theories of the last fifty years (just behind JFK and 9/11). This is a theory so insane/obscure that no duly elected and sworn Representative objected to Obama's confirmation. Sceptre (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think the relevant issues have materially changed since the last AfD.  Even leaving aside the basic rule that Notability is not temporary, the fringe still hangs out there. Maintaining this separate article remains by far the best way to deal with the subject on Wikipedia.  Even if the issue isn't getting continuing play in the media, this article 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) material that would otherwise keep mucking up other Obama articles. Delete this and we have to spend a ton of energy keeping this sludge out of other articles for the next 8 years or more.  Not to mention, it is really a pretty good article, all things considered given the difficulties inherent in its subject matter.  I don't think it's overly long (but if it is, the answer is to compact some of the details, not to delete it) nor do I find it to be "pandering to the tinfoilers"; instead it provides an encyclopedic and authoritative treatment of a bizarre but real phenomenon.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Qv. WP:BETTERHERETHANTHERE and WP:UNDUE. Notable by the GNG, not notable by WP:FRINGE. Sceptre (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. What is "GNG", and what page did you intend by your redlink to WP:BETTERHERETHANTHERE? JamesMLane t c 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) the general notability guideline; 2) See, WP:BHTT. Sceptre (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not centrally edited, so "we say more about this bullshit theory than the other bullshit theory" is not a valid reason for pruning or deletion.  If there are more important topics in Wikipedia that get scantier coverage, let's create or improve those articles, instead of trying to serve some amorphous overall "balance" by depriving our readers of neutral, validly sourced information. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I suspect these repeated deletion nominations are politically motivated. This was an important part of the campaign, with all the stealth email messages spreading rumors. Yes, nutjob theories, tinfoil hat, but notable and important to keep. Tony (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as the theories are sourced (and not just made up for this wiki page.) Having an article on this gives no more legitimacy to the conspiracy theories than the "JFK conspiracy" articles do; that is a silly argument.  And can we squash the AfDs on the article once and for all?  Isn't this what deletion reviews are for? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, deletion reviews are for alleged improprieties in the conduct or closing of a nomination. Where, as here, the argument is that circumstances have changed since the previous AfD, then a renomination is the appropriate procedure.  Obama's inauguration provides a good-faith basis for revisiting the question (although I for one continue to oppose deletion).  I hope that, if this AfD fails, we'll see no further nominations, because it's hard to see what else could change. JamesMLane t c 06:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The notable point is not the theories themselves, but the phenomenon of the theories. There's plenty to discuss here, and frankly, I think the article does a valuable service by providing a wealth of material that allows one to understand just why the theories are built on sand.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a really strange part of recent history, but will be part of history nonetheless. As this is the sort of nonsense people like to write about, I'd expect considerable future expansion. Can't be helped. DGG (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly a notable conspiracy theory; I don't think objective standards of whether the theory itself is supported by evidence (rather than that people believe the theory) can be considered in whether or not we should have an article.  Arguments to delete this theory would also be arguments to delete almost all conspiracy theories, most of which have just as much basis of fact as this one.  That any elected representatives profess to believe it simply confirms its notability; it would be notable even without the 5 mentioned by Sceptre above. JulesH (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. We're talking about the most powerful person in the free world here, so I would imagine most things about him could pass notability. This conspiracy theory is pretty prevalent and the article rather long. Rather than let it clutter one of the obviously most accessed articles in Wikipedia, let's let it keep its own article space. Valley2 city ‽ 08:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for pretty much all of the reasons set out above. Sadly it's not a fringe viewpoint; an opinion poll cited in the article suggests that 10% of the US population (that's 30 million people) subscribe to this conspiracy theory, so Jimbo's injunction about "a viewpoint held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" is not applicable here. The article was created not only to document this conspiracy theory but to keep such material out of other articles - before the article was created, conspiracy theory material was metastizing through numerous other related articles. We're now able to keep it in one place, out of the related articles, and thus keep the inevitable POV-pushing under control. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're just about in snowball territory here, but anyways, I wonder if public opinion polls are qualified to serve as a counter-argument to the "viewpoint held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" standard. I'd think that a simple head count isn't what they had in mind, but rather it was meant to be a count of sometihng/one more established or notable.  i.e. global warming has its share of skeptics, but the skeptics are usually scientists themselves brings their POV up to a recognizable, if still fringe, POV.  There's  still a pretty sizable % of the public that thinks Hussein was behind 9/11, but that's not reliable enough to make an article about it. (I sure hope thee actually isn't one, now that I mention it). Tarc (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Same reasons as above. It seems like every couple of months or so the same editor renominates this article to get it deleted.  Maybe instead of trying to get the article deleted or slapping all sorts of tags on it, why not try to work with other editors and improve the article.  Brothejr (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: the subject is clearly notable, and was the subject of endless news coverage. Documenting the existence of a fringe view is not the same thing as endorsing it. Although the view is a fringe view, it was held by a huge number of people at the time, and is culturally significant as a snapshot of some people's reaction to Obama's "otherness": would the same reaction have occurred if he had been a white man born in Hawaii to an American mother and an English father? -- The Anome (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea how little these matter if you don't read Digg/Wikipedia/fringe blogs? I read the NYT, my local paper, several magazines and watch MSNBC, Fox News and the local news and simply do not hear about these conspiracy theories from those sources, and never have. I'm not say we should delete the article... but getting your news from user-influenced internet outlets really gives you a skewed sense of how important this topic is, I think. I realize there's a mainstream story here and there... but once I stopped reading Digg a few months ago, this conspiracy theory went from being something I was bombarded with on a daily basis to something I literally didn't hear about until I saw this AFD. --Movingday29 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the story was all over the mainstream media. See this Google news search for "Obama birth certificate" for coverage from Newsweek, Time, the Chicago Tribune, International Herald Tribune, Fox News, the Boston Globe, the Australian, and many, many regional U.S. newspapers; also coverage from the BBC, the LA Times... According to this report, the citizenship rumor had been heard by more than half the American public. -- The Anome (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet I never hear the American public talk about it... only people on websites. I know it's all anecdotal... but for me, this story disappeared from my life the minute I stopped reading Digg. --Movingday29 (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Unlike some other articles on nutcase theories which rely on basically a single nutcase source, this article is verifiable to a multitude of nutcases. What it needs is more sources to debunk the nuttery and to show those who made such claims to be the nutcases they are. Let them have their 15 minute of fame preserved for all time. --Russavia Dialogue 15:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think keeping an article on this nonsense is in any way an endorsement of the baloney. Per WP:NPOV, the article should clearly mark that the people believing the nonsense are a small minority. But the coverage is intense enough to set up an article. The Obama campaign considered such nonsense attacks serious enough to set up the Fightthesmears website to debunk them. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- These "theories" are notable. While individual ones may not be notable, the coverage they've gotten as a whole more than meets notability standards. I'm feeling a little bit of snow in the air. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The coverage of the theories is what makes them notable, not the truth value of the theories. We had a similar debate about the Apollo hoax stuff. It's not the theory itself that's notable, it's the fact that reliable sources talk about it in some depth. It's also a place to send some yokel who, coming late to the game from conservapedia or someplace, says "What about this?" and we can send him to this page to read all about it. It's educational, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:09, 16 February 2009 (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.