Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 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 Keep and cleanup, with no prejudice to also refine Category:Conspiracy theories.--Tikiwont 11:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Massive unorganized list of conspiracy theories. This looks like one of those situations where a section was becoming a problem in another article and they just split it off. There is no inclusion criteria, but really how can there because anyone can make up a conspiracy theroy. The list starts of by simply being links to articles, then tries to categorize itself by country. Then just falls apart and starts having mini essays on various theories. This really something that should be a category, this list is just a magnet for vandals, OR, and other junk. Ridernyc 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Most of these are actually highly notable. I'll agree there is some unneeded OR here, but that can be removed.  Being a vandalism target is absolutely no reason to delete it.  And lastly, it has been here for 4 years.  Seems like it is acceptable given that. - Rjd0060 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of inappropriate, unencyclopedic articles have been around a long time. Age doesn't mean a thing. --Hnsampat 23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has organizational value. The blocks of prose should probably each be split off or removed though. --Alksub 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I heard Jimbo Wales, in league with the reverse vampires, is using this AFD to remove all information pertaining to secret wikipedia articles made by the Rand Corporation. Listcruft. At best should be a category. Macktheknifeau 10:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If this gets deleted, it'll sound like a conspiracy. Lugnuts 12:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, and there won't even be any lists to add it to! - Rjd0060 15:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Insane as most conspiracy theories are, this is a perfectly decent article. It needs a bit of clean up, not deletion.  Where else can someone find a list of conspiracy theories peculiar to Poland? Jewish aliens living in Dick Cheney's underwear drawer have taken my sister hostage to force me to post this message. Nick mallory 12:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize - This is a good example of why categories and sub-categories exist. --Hnsampat 13:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to category, per Hnsampat. --136.223.3.130 15:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs a good bit of cleanup, additional referencing and probably some purging of unreferencable/nonnotable material, but it's definitely keep-able. Surmountable problems are no reason to delete an article. LaMenta3 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The Cabal supports conspiracies the Cabal denies this message  Martijn Hoekstra 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has a good structure and so seems better than a category. Colonel Warden 08:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a well done and useful list-- morethan could be done in a category.DGG (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a reasonable list concept about a notable if annoying subject matter. MLA 16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is this is an open list. It can grow exponentially as users add their favourite, little known and obscure theory, or when new theories appear. So I say keep but prune to those theories relevant enough to have their own article. Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- commons- es) 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep John254 00:34, 12 November 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.