Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Theories about the July 2005 London bombings


 * 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 of the debate was keep. –  Rob e  rt  04:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories about the July 2005 London bombings
Original Research, most of the links are to discussion forums, or to genuine news articles that do not really back up the conspiracy theory view. Astrotrain 13:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It seems we have a conspiracy theory page for every other tragedy (example: 9/11 conspiracy theories), so I don't see why this one shouldn't be allowed.  However, this page needs a total rework as written. --MisterHand 16:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. We may have 9/11 conspiracy theory pages, but that's because those nuts got a lot of them published. For the London bombings this is so far original research and should be deleted, until of course we inevitably get some notable publications picking this up. Flyboy Will 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * weak keep, as said by MisterHand, there are a great deal of them out there...it just so happens that the author of this page did a shitty job drawing this one up - but hopefully we get more literate conspiracists or interested WPians to fix it up. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep there has been discussion even in major national newspapers. Zzzzz 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I rewrote it. Let's hope it's expandable with more reliable sources; otherwise we can merge it somewhere. CanadianCaesar 21:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All we have is David Shyler's opinion, which can go at his own page. The Mirror source should be removed also, as it is not saying that the bombings were an "inside job". Astrotrain 21:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that Jeff Rense has some theories about this, and he's notable to get his own article, I think, indicates this can be expanded beyond the Shyler quote. CanadianCaesar 21:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That person, according to his article, is a "conspiracy theorist", therefore it is not surprising he has theories on a wide range of interest, no doubt motivated by commerical intent. Until a credible source show that there is any genuine conspiracy theory, the article should be deleted. Any nutter can make up a conspiracy theory, but it needs to well documented for it to be encyclopedic. Astrotrain 22:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know, we quote Fred Phelps' website in Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina- perhaps, to keep the stuff from the Mirror also, we could move it to Rumours about the July 2005 London bombings and add some content from the Urban Legends Reference Pages-   CanadianCaesar 22:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that article before. At least it has more substantial sources than this one. All we have is a comment sourced from an unreliable website. I also wouldn't list snopes.com as reliable. Astrotrain 22:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe snopes isn't "reliable" exactly, but it is a notable discussion that Wikipedia can report without endorsing or refuting. And Fred Phelps is just as unreliable as Sightings.  CanadianCaesar 22:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I added some more info after a bit of googling Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic and the entries appear to be well sourced. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - No reason to delete. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - has recieved a fair ammount of attention. Just need to make sure that it stays NPOV and fairly presents the arguments and analysis of both sides. Of course title neutrality is a whole separate matter... Blackcats 06:54, 24 December 2005 (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.