Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream 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 of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

List of mainstream conspiracy theories
This poorly written article attempts to give more credibility to certain conspiracy theories by labeling them "mainstream". The article is full of original research and is highly POV. There are already numerous conspiracy theory articles, such as List of alleged conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theories (a collection). The information in this page is already covered in a much more NPOV manner in other articles, so a merge isn't necessary. Carbonite | Talk 18:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Carbonite | Talk 18:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs improving, yes. And it does not "attempt" to give more credibility, it reports on conspiracy theories that are talked about in mainstream media. The Bush ploting to bomb Aljazeera is certanly a mainstream theory, and does not deserve to be bundled with the goofy "elvis is alive", "The earth is flat", "Moon hoax theory" and "Hitler is alive" thereories. By the way, how is it pov? It does nothing more that cite Newspapers, how could that possibly be POV? Also, is citing newspapers original research? really? --Striver 18:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's inherently POV because it asserts that certain conspiracy theories are "mainstream", while others are not (by their exclusion). Linking to an article or two doesn't show that a theory is mainstream. There's no reason to create an entirely new article when we already have several conspiracies theory lists (see above). Also, I fail to see how several of these are even conspiracy theories. How is "is bin Laden dead?" or "is al-Zarqawi dead?" a conspiracy theory? Carbonite | Talk 18:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If a theory is not mainstream, then that should be disscused, that has nothing to do with deleting the article. Those two can be discused in the article talk page and have nothing to do with this VFD. --Striver 18:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "The Bush ploting to bomb Aljazeera is certanly a mainstream theory, and does not deserve to be bundled with the goofy..." That statement right there is why this article shouldn't exist. Everyone has a different POV on what theories are goofy and which ones are "legitimate". If you want to better source conspiracy theories in other article, go right ahead, but there's no need to have this one. How many mentions does it take to become mainstream? 1? 10? 100? By which news agencies? It's simply not an encyclopedic topic and shouldn't have its own article. Why not work on improving other conspiracy theory articles? Carbonite | Talk 18:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What is mainstream or not follows the same paterns as anyting else. It depends on how reputable a source is. You know, simple source evaluation. I dont care about POVs, we are talking about wheather its mainstream or not. And that is easy to evalate. Something like CNN = Mainstream, Blogs = Not mainstream. You get the idea... --Striver 18:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tabloid rumours and speculations are not conspiracy theories. u p p l a n d 20:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Then delete inaccuracy, not the article--Striver 20:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Conspiracy theories are inherently dubious until proven.  A well written paragraph within existing conspiracy theory articles would do more for the credibility a particular issue than a poorly asserted claim in some separate article. Durova 22:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research and inherently POV. Capitalistroadster 22:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV title and criteria, possible POV fork. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uppland. Stifle 01:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There are two excellent articles on this topic already; this sad litle article contributes nothing. D e nni &#9775;  04:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, the theories described are not "mainstream" outside of Cuba. Gazpacho 05:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Mainstream" is impossible to establish. -Willmcw 14:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV, and the title is almost an oxymoron. --Last Malthusian 09:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete-Clearly agenda driven and the only likely changes I can see would be to add other agendas.--T. Anthony 11:20, 29 November 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.