Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbine 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   delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Columbine conspiracy theories

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

When I stumbled upon this article, it relied heavily on self published sources. Now that they are removed, I see no reason why this article should stand on its own. I did a cursory search for some valid sources but cannot come up with anything except articles in the immediate aftermath. Perhaps some of this content can be merged into Columbine High School massacre. Perhaps better sources exist out there to expand and update it to reflect a true "conspiracy", but I don't see them now. CutOffTies (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems notable to me. passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep As per WP: GNG. AP and CBS coverage is considered reliable. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Curious, do you think this article should stand because there's sources that disprove one conspiracy? --CutOffTies (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge last paragraph as a possible footnote in the main article, but even that would be a stretch. It seems that there was some evidence that a cop shot one of the students, which was later disproven by an independent inquiry. The main person questioning the police account has accepted the new inquiries evidence. I don't see how this even gets close to being a conspiracy theory. AIR corn (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete, per Aircorn. Nothing really justifies having this borderline OR article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete, per Aircorn and Lugnuts. Unreferenced and unproven fringe theory. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MAD seems to suggest that merging and deleting is not a good idea due to attribution issues. If a merge of any information is done a redirect should probably be created instead of deleting the article. Note that delete is my first preference anyway as I don't really see the value of adding this information to the main article. AIR corn (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. - DonCalo (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge This is short enough it can be contained within the main article. Stedrick (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is borderline OR, and there's not really anything here worth merging. An outright delete would be fine.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are tenuous at best, original research at worst. I would say merge, but I really don't see anything here that is even worth merging. Trusilver  06:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Two users who lazily looked at the existence of a couple reliable sources should not have prolonged reaching a conclusion, especially with the existence of six solid arguments. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not necessary. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. The crux of this discussion is whether or not there's enough to justify having a separate article about a conspiracy. Two users gave responses that there's reliable sources/notability in the article. That is a lazy response to the AFD.  If pointing that out is uncivil, fine I'm guilty. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It might just be a case of Sandstein being uncertain if it should be merged or deleted. No real rush in any case. AIR corn (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I didn't think about that. --CutOffTies (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete not merge per nom. -- →gab  24 dot  grab← 17:18, 27 July 2012 (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.