Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush family conspiracy theory (0th nomination)

Bush family conspiracy theory
Bush family conspiracy theory  This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Vacuum c 01:03, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This page is a jumble of conspiracy theories about George W. Bush and his family. A vast majority of the "theories" are nothing more than Bush-bashing. Few of the theories have credible sources. Carrp 18:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep. There's nothing wrong with this article. It's descriptive, NPOV, and heavily sourced. User Carrp confuses the map with the territory: his critique concerns the validity of the theories described in the article -- not the article itself. A similar leap would be to suggest deleting 'Cold Fusion' or even 'Kennedy Assassination,' ignoring their historical or sociological relevance by claiming that many of the claims described in those articles were 'not proven.' Point = missed. This may be a good candidate for the 'VfD abuse of the week' award. Auto movil 19:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If you believe this page should kept, that's certainly your right. However, I am rather puzzled by your reasons:
 * Descriptive - Many of theories are similar to this example: "More banking tomfoolery with Riggs by Jonathan Bush." It's a link to an blog with a conspiracy theory. That's it.
 * NPOV - By nature, it's extremely difficult for this page to be NPOV. It's a page of attacks against Bush, but since they're called theories, it's somehow OK.
 * Heavily sourced - The 18 conspiracy theories have a total of 4 sources. That's certainly not my definition of "heavily sourced." One theory is nothing more than "Prescott Bush supported the Nazis."
 * Vote to keep if you want, but don't pretend there's nothing wrong with the article.Carrp 19:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing about this article that qualifies it for deletion under Wikipedia guidelines. Theories critical of George W. Bush, and the Bush family, are absolutely allowed in articles such as this one. The title is, "Bush Family Conspiracy Theory." Do these theories exist? Yes. There's a vast literature, some of it by highly credible authors such as Kevin Phillips. I'm very curious as to why there shouldn't be an article on this topic.
 * Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inter alia, I count at least thirty sources listed, and wonder how you can see only four. And apropos 'Prescott Bush supported the Nazis,' a conscientious author would have linked to the relevant government records -- Bush family assets were seized on grounds of trading with the enemy. This was also in the news recently, etc. It's not a 'conspiracy theory,' but a historical fact. I raise this example because you singled it out. There are other things in this article that I find dodgy or unlikely. The title is, after all, 'Bush Family Conspiracy Theory' -- a quite accurate title. I find that the author was quite evenhanded in stating that some of the listed theories were grounded in credible research, while some were, as he wrote, "specious and unsubstantiated."

It's certainly possible to edit the parts of the article that you feel violate, or strongly test, NPOV.

So how does this road lead to deletion, and under what policy? Auto movil 19:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The goal of Wikipedia "To become a complete, accurate encyclopedia." Conspiracy theories are inherently inaccurate because they deal with circumstantial evidence and attempt to make links where it's likely none exist. A page called Bush Family Conspiracy Theories is not only inherently inaccurate, but has an anti-Bush POV. While I concede that it's theoretically possible that this page could be brought up to Wikipedia standards, it needs so much work that, in reality, it will never reach that goal. Take a look at the history of the page and how little work has been done to maintain accuracy and NPOV.


 * My position isn't that this page should be deleted because it's critical of Bush. My position is that this page serves no useful purpose and is easily abused. Anyone who dislikes Bush or his family can post whatever garbage they desire on this page. I'd also support the deletion of a page of Clinton Family Conspiracy Theories (if it existed). Articles on these subjects are nearly impossible to maintain as evidenced by this Bush page. This information should exist, but it has no place in Wikipedia. Carrp 20:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Articles about conspiracy theories are not the same as articles propounding conspiracy theories. The article is accurate in that it lists current conspiracy theories involving the Bush family -- some of which are grounded in fact, and some of which (as the article states) are not to be taken seriously. They exist, and this is an article about them.

When you say, "Anyone who dislikes Bush or his family can post whatever garbage they desire on this page," that's true, but also trivial. Anyone who likes Bush can also edit the article to their heart's content. The fact that Bush-dislikers could post negative things about the President is not a reason to delete an article from Wikipedia.

I assume there's an anti-Clinton article like this one. I'd argue against deleting that page as well. The anti-Clinton conspiracy theories were a real political force in America in the '90s. I'm trying to underline a distinction. Am I explaining well? Auto movil 20:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, of course. Everyking 22:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, I am continually amazed at how people weave family, school and business connections into conspiracy theories. Wyss 22:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss: I'm also amazed that people could believe in witches and flying monkeys, therefore I submit Wizard of Oz for deletion. It's simply amazing that an article could advance such unsubstantiated nonsense! The article refers to flying monkeys as if they were a proven fact!

Wait. Oh. It's about the movie, The Wizard of Oz, and not propounding the view of reality shown in the Wizard of Oz.

You can tell I'm frustrated from feeling I've had to overexplain this. The article is about these conspiracy theories. I recommend reading the article, for anyone who wants to vote for or against deletion

I need a nap. Salut! Auto movil 23:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Auto movil, I did understand... I just don't think it's notable... yeah, yeah, I could successfully argue that this topic is notable, but deep down, I think even a description of the phenomenon promotes it unreasonably. That said, if the vote gets close and you need mine, leave a brief note on my talk page ;) Wyss 03:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It needs a lot of work, but doesn't seem like a deletion candidate to me. Keep Tuf-Kat 23:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are allot of conspiracy theories about the Bush family for some reason so it deserves an article, But the page really needs work. Arminius 23:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Intrigue 00:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Extreme ultrakeep. RaD Man (talk) 02:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Basically agree with TUF-KAT. Reluctant keep: it could use a lot of work by someone more sympathetic to the Bushes (which is not me!). -- Jmabel | Talk 02:40, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, informative. Having an article doesn't imply endorsement. Gazpacho 06:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongest keep. I will watchlist this article and help it when I can, and I hope the nominator and delete voters do the same, which I believe would have been the appropriate response in the first place. Samaritan 07:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and cleanup. Ambi 07:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep eh. -Ld | talk 23:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, clean up. ~ mlk &#9993; &#9836; 05:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
 * Delete - Erroneous conspiracies aren't encyclopedic. -- Judson 22:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, just propaganda. -- Crevaner 00:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Is this an objection to the current content (which I agree is POV) or are you saying that the topic -- that people hold these theories -- is inherently unencyclopedic? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I believe much of the article violates POV rules. -- Old Right 00:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Is this an objection to the current content (which I agree is POV) or are you saying that the topic -- that people hold these theories -- is inherently unencyclopedic? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Megan1967 02:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though these may be "conspiracy theories" to diehard Bush-backers, interested individuals can take it upon themselves to conduct further investigation. Iraq having WMD was a "conspiracy theory", 19 hijackers crashing airplanes on 9/11 is a "conspiracy theories, JFK assasinated by a lone gunman is a "conspiracy theory". If you're going to allow one then allow them all. Freedom of speech, use it or lose it.
 * Delete Hoplessly POV title and subject. Masterhomer 01:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep and improve. If the article was more together there would be alot less antagonism, I think. Fact of the matter is, these theories arent just the subjective musings of the author, but objective theories that exist and are shared by many. Obviously their veracity is in doubt, thats why theyre theories. I understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and cant file every theory about everyone, but consipiracy theories about the Bush family are significant enough to keep, if not for any other reason because they are believed by so many. --Clngre 03:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep There are articles on 9/11 conspiracies, and JFK assasination conspiracies and any number of conspiracies. Shall we delete them aswell? Alexp73 14:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(These votes were placed after voting had closed 18:13, 31 Dec 2004 UTC.)


 * Keep --Yooden 01:01, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Keep no reason to delete except partisanship Philip 01:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Obvious keep. Dan100 10:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although i agree it needs a bit of work done to it. I dont see a problem with articles on conspiracies since there are others, and a lot of work has been put into this article for it to be deleted. Newfoundglory 11:06, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.