Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JFK-UFO 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 per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

JFK-UFO conspiracy theories

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable WP:FRINGE content, padded in an apparent effort to make it looks more significant within the Whacko-American community than it actually is. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep could be improved. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. GNG and and NFRINGE are met;  Notability is established by RSes of folklore & popular fiction.  (Strong disagreement with accusations that the article was "padded in an apparent effort" to deceive/misrepresent the subject matter, kindly WP:AGF.)  Feoffer (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume it was not deliberate misrepresentation on your part. Perhaps it was just unfamiliarity with the finer points of WPs editorial policies. Example: Fred Crisman once claimed he saw a UFO + Fred Crisman was deposed at the trial of Clay Shaw regarding possible CIA ties + Clay Shaw was accused of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK = a JFK/UFO Conspiracy Theory. That’s classic WP:SYNTH. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not WP:SYNTH/OR on our part: there have been whole books on the topic: "JFK and UFO: Military-Industrial Conspiracy and Cover-Up from Maury Island to Dallas. Feoffer (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there some secondary source that discusses and analyzes this theory, along with others in the context of "JFK-UFO Conspiracy Theories"? Or is it just confined to this one, non-notable book? I'm afraid what you have assembled in this article is your own List of UFO conspiracy theories mentioning JFK. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The publisher suggests that this book too may not be usable as a source. However the Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy (in the article) does have some mentions and is acceptable.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep It clearly is a thing, and clearly has a lot of coverage, it may be bollcoks, but it is notable bollcoks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The photos and first section are WP:IRI, and the remainder is WP:SYNTH derived almost entirely from sources that fail WP:FRIND. The dearth of coverage in reliable sources indicates that the topic fails WP:NFRINGE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The WP:IRI issues seem to be getting worse; e.g., this,this, and this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrews's citation of militia conspiracies is literally straight out of Barkun, used to support his conclusions that Andrews et al represented a new, "darker", phase in UFO conspiracism.  I get that you don't like this subject, I don't like it either.  But kids are watching TV shows where they see presidents killed over aliens, and our mission is to give readers the best article possible, to help them understand the origin and sometimes-dangerous influence of these crackpot ideas.  NFRINGE is a policy because we want people learning about fringe from us, not the FX network or QANON. Feoffer (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete This deserves a couple sentences in UFO conspiracy theories, but as a stand alone article, it fails WP:NFRINGE. Conspiracy theories connecting JFK with UFOs are a thing, but they haven't risen to a level of notability that warrants a separate article. To do that, we'd need lots of WP:FRIND sources like this that explicitly address the topic of conspiracy theories about JFK and UFOs. Instead we have lots of WP:OR, i.e. a compilation of things an editor found in primary sources about JFK or UFOs that they feel support the article topic (Clay Shaw, the Maury Island UFO incident, some rumor about Marilyn Monroe, an episode of The X Files, etc). - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not OR to connect Maury Island to the JFK assassination. There's literally a book with the subtitle "From Maury Island to Dallas". Feoffer (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are conspiracy theories about UFOs. THere are conspiracy thories about the Kennedy assassination. And given the tendency of conspiracy theorists to connect absolutely anything with anything else, it is inevitable that there will be 'JFK-UFO conspiracy theories'. The mere existence of such an intersection doesn't however make anything inherently notable, and given the lack of significant evidence from non-fringe sources that this particular intersection is of any specific interest, rather than just being another example of fringe wackiness, it fails WP:GNG. As LuckyLouie says, a line or two in UFO conspiracy theories is all it requires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fringe, non-notable conspiracy theory.--Darwinek (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge There is a useable article somewhere in here, but the current one fails WP:SYNTH. Maybe make a Behold a Pale Horse article a thing instead. Swordman97  talk to me  05:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's tricky -- according to the Barkun narrative, the theories both predated Cooper and continued evolving after his death.   The current article certainly can be improved by increasing parity with and reference to scholarly sources.   Feoffer (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there any 'scholarly sources' that actually discuss this specific subject in any depth though? You cite Barkun in multiple places, but from what I've been able to see, he merely gives the 'JFK-UFO' theories as examples to support his broader thesis regarding conspiratorial thinking in contemporary American culture. He is writing about a mode of thinking, rather than describing specific beliefs as independent objects of study. "It seems to matter little whether the belief in question concerns the Kennedy assassination, Atlantis, Bigfoot, or UFO's"( P.28). You cannot cherry-pick a source like that to make a claim that there are scholarly sources establishing Wikipedia-notability on a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkum devotes significant coverage, as do Bergmann, Goldberg, and Jacobson -- none of those works could be ever accused of being adherent proclamations.  As for "writing about a mode of thinking, rather than describing specific beliefs as independent objects of study", I'm not 100% certain what that very creative language means, but it's not a standard of inclusion.  Feoffer (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is the standard of inclusion. Which specifies "significant coverage" in sources as being necessary. Please cite the specific page numbers for the content in Barkum that you consider constitute 'significant coverage' of the article topic, so people can assess for themselves whether notability criteria are met. Because I'm not seeing it, in what limited access Google permits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pages numbers added. Barkun traces the theories from Andrews, Moore, Cooper, Icke, and eventually even Jim Marrs. He discussed their intersection and overlap with anti-semitic as well as anti-masonic tropes.   And Barkun's work is far from alone -- go read the Jacobson work, that book's almost entirely dedicated to the theory, its proponents, and its impact.   Feoffer (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Barkun discusses theories. Theories plural. A whole 244-page book of them. What he doesn't seem to do, from what I can read via Google at least, is treat 'JFK-UFO' theories as anything of particular significance in the developing web of interconnected conspiracism he documents. Or if he does, your article fails to explain what particular significance he attaches to them, since you seem to be citing him just for the purpose of establishing that the topic has been mentioned by scholars. Scholarship consists of more than mere lists of things that happen. It involves analysis. And conclusions. Barkun analyses the cultic milieu that US conspiricism developed into. He reaches conclusions about it. Conclusions about the whole milieu, not about particular facets of it. Barken writes a damn fine analysis, in my opinion. One that deserves better than to be cherry-picked to prop up an article that decontextualises one particular 'theory' to such an extent that his analysis apparently doesn't deserve even the briefest of explanation. If you are going to claim that 'scholarly sources' support the article, explain how. By telling us what conclusions this scholarship arrived at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk Feoffer (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why you chose to reply there, since splitting this discussion over multiple pages serves no useful purpose whatsoever. And the material you have just added says nothing about the Kennedy assassination (it is commenting on " the early 1990s"), and accordingly does nothing to indicate that JFK-UFO conspiracy theories' have any independent notability. Instead, it illustrates my point - that Barkun is analysing the conspiracist milieu, as a whole, rather than as a series of independent ideas, and you are misusing the source to try to justify an article on one specific facet of it. You are clearly resorting to synthesis, to try to support a topic which can be more usefully discussed in articles which actually provide the context, and the opportunity to cite Barkun for his analysis, rather than just a source to cherry-pick. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I replied there because that's where we talk about improvement to the article, such as those you suggested.  Your above post shows you're cognizant that Barkun, a very notable scholar, has significant coverage that could be better-summarized.  That's GNG, my friend.  And Barkun's far from alone.    Feoffer (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is where we talk about cherry-picking and synthesis engaged in to give a misleading impression of independent Wikipedia-notability for a topic much better discussed elsewhere. Your refusal to actually address my point is duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reminder, Personal attacks of this nature are unacceptable.  There are no angry mastadons here.  This article's subject can obviously inflame passions, but we're all doing our best to write a good encyclopedia. (edit conflict)Feoffer (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't like being told to stop playing stupid games, I suggest you stop playing them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge with CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory, a line or two with the highest quality source(s). I see on the talk page there such a mention in the article once existed but was removed in 2013 for being fringe. That was eight years ago, try again. I also see a line does currently exist in the UFO conspiracy theories article. This current article can't even factually establish that Kennedy had an interest in UFOs other than "supposed" and none of the references have supporting quotations. See also this archived talk page discussion from 2012-13 for the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article, where the theory as a subsection involving NASA was deleted in this edit on Jan 2, 2013. Until a time-tested mention on either of those Kennedy articles happens, a stand-alone article is not warranted at this time, in my opinion.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This current article can't even factually establish that Kennedy had an interest in UFOs That's not a standard for inclusion. The article on Bigfoot can't even factually establish Bigfoot exists, because he don't.  This is bollucks, but it's notable bollocks, with three different TV shows dedicated the premise and more books than you can count.  Feoffer (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources aren't strong enough for this to remain a standalone article. Sgerbic (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2021 (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.