Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible conspiracy theory


 * 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. Herostratus 13:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bible conspiracy theory

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nomination: This is a reluctant nomination. The article has potential but is hampered by serious problems with WP:ATT. It is very long article with almost no citations (there is exactly one as of the time of this nom.) I have no doubt that these theories exist, but without citations to show who says what, the entire article comes across as being OR. I have made repeated requests for citations on the talk page, and about a month ago I tagged both the article and specific sentences, with no response. I am more than willing to withdraw the nom if work is done, but as it stands now the article must be nominated at least. Blueboar 12:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the problems mentioned are real, but not reasons to delete. --Martin Wisse 13:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting article, and I don't usually go for conspiracy theory stuff... perhaps a better title for this article might be "alternate theories" or something. At any rate, while referencing is bad currently, I have added 1 personally, and most of the items on the list are hardly out of the blue, they mention books and scholars who support the ideas in question, but just lack the formality of inline citations just yet. Thus I think it's clear this article just needs improvement, not deletion. --W.marsh 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. These theories definitely exist, but to keep an article titled "Bible Conspiracy Theories" requires that collectively they be a topic of debate. There's no citation to underly that claim, which in any case is not really asserted in the article. As it stands, the article is OR - interesting but disqualified for Wikipedia. (I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I don't expect it.)-- BPMullins | Talk 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - but the nominator has valid concerns that apparently have failed to be addressed for some time. I would recommend that Blueboar or another editor with similar concerns add [citation needed] tags where appropriate, and maybe their presence there will get under the skin of someone who can provide sources.   ◄    Zahakiel    ►   19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I thought that the whole point of having the tag was to avoid having every other sentence flagged with  tags.  My other option would be to invoke WP:RS and simply delete everything that is unsourced - which would leave, at most, two disconnected paragraphs.  By the way... I thank those who are actually adding sources to the article instead of simply saying "keep it" but not helping to aleviate the problems. Blueboar 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: - I understand, but there is a difference between a general, "This article has no citations" notice, and specifying this needs a source, this needs a source, this needs a source (and I don't know of any policy stating they can't both be used where necessary). The effect may be only psychological, but it can be considerable, especially since your concerns haven't been addressed previously.   ◄    Zahakiel    ►   20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, OK... if only to demonstrate exactly how bad this article is. I still feel that if there isn't significant work done on this front, the article should be deleted.  Blueboar 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The articles does not have enough sources, but that is no reason to delete it. The theories do exist and citations for many statements can be found. Some of the things mentioned, such as the apocryphas are common knowledge and there is no consensus yet that common knowledge statements need to have a source. AfD is not the place to deal with this kind of problem. --DorisHノート 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it also needs mention of Scientology's claim that the bible's whole stuff was the result of brainwashing that Xenu did 75 million years ago. SakotGrimshine 10:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - if this is really a claim by Scientologists, then add it with citation. Blueboar 12:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is what they claim.. It says so in one of the scientology articles. SakotGrimshine 12:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be precise, it is what ex-Scientologists say the Scientologists claim. Xenu is considered secret by Scientologists and the whole "space opera" stuff is only made available to OT III members after they sign all sorts of waivers. --Richard 07:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is informative and that alone suffices. There are enumerable Wikilinks and some external links to other sources for those who want to follow up. Anyone who sees any potential stretch can add a "citation needed" tag. Use those, not deletion, for informative, well written articles. --MBHiii 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a notable subject, and the article is useful. But he individual entries have to be sourced directly or indirectly, and not all of them are. The ones not sourced are, in my personal opinion, the more unusual ones that I'd want to know more about. I am also unsure about the article title, but  cannot immediately think of a better.DGG 01:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The problem with citations is a red herring. Ignore it.  The real problem is that this article is a mish-mash of articles that are only tangentially related through their alternative views of what constitutes the "true Bible".  Each individual topic may be encyclopedic but there is no Bible conspiracy theory, at least not one that unifies the various theories.  Most of these theories are not "conspiracy theories" per se.  They are just theories about what is or is not the "true Bible".  At the very minimum, this article needs a new title that is more descriptive of its content.  Better yet, merge this into an existing Bible-related article.  --Richard 07:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete 38.100.34.2 22:06, 27 March 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.