Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Brotherhood 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  Wily D  06:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: First, nominator hasn't bothered to give a reason. More importantly, the reason proffered elsewhere is that the "very concept" of the article violates NPOV. This is nonsense. There is an article called List of conspiracy theories, which goes back at least as far as 2003, and other articles about conspiracy theories calling them such. Most importantly, the claims referred to in the article are, by and large, McCarthyist claptrap, including two perpetrated by Michele Bachmann, who made her name making a truly McCarthyist claim in the 2008 US presidential campaign. Nominator, who believes in the conspiracy theory, attempted to support his position with garbage written by the Walid Shoebat, a dubious source at best. -Rrius (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep nomination fails to provide a rationale for deletion. Till 08:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy close No reason given for nomination. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  09:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article violates wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Rrius is incorrect.  A reason was given on the article's talk page.  Proof has also been given to show the article is incorrect.  Rrius does not like the source because he hates Bachman.  However, his personal feelings aside, a source has been provided and should be taken into consideration regarding the deletion of the page. Korentop (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, I mentioned that you gave an excuse elsewhere. As for the "source", it is a self-published source from Walid Shoebat, which has nothing about it to suggest it is reliable. That it is actually just distortion and innuendo can be seen by anyone who reads it. In any event, the presence of such a source is beside the point. Korentop simply does not present any argument for deletion. The closest he comes is arguing that the title violates NPOV, which, as I mentioned above, doesn't work. -Rrius (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: Korentop is the nominator, as there is no separate nominating statement, this delete vote should be considered the nominating statement. Monty  845  15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete We had a page called Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories and it was renamed by consensus. There is no reason for a second page. It violates consensus. There is no reason that allegations and counter allegations can't be reported factually without editor's POV or taking sides. We agreed to use a neutral title for real and alleged international operations and outreaches of this movement. See log. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the log, that doesn't actually state the case correctly. Jason is talking about Influence Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood, which at one point was moved to Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories and drastically. Jason complained that the move violated consensus, and it was moved back. In reality, the change was drastic enough that it was virtually a deletion of the old article, redirecting it to a new one. In any event, the current "conspiracy theories" article does not seem to duplicate the "Influence" article, so there is no credible way to argue that consensus about retaining the old article in any way affects the new one. This is especially so since there is no discussion of the incident, just edit summaries. Moreover, even if Jason were correct, it would be an argument for merging, not simply deleting. -Rrius (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the log: []. See April 21, 2012. "Conspiracy" was moved to "Influences" according to consensus. Note also in the log on July 20th LonelyBoy2012 delete the whole "Influences" article and declared it unsalvageable. He then proceeded to create a new article with the old name "Conspiracy" title. This isn't collaboration and consensus reaching. I suggest everyone work on the "Influences" article and that includes possible name reversion if consensus is reached. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see the problem here. Every claim is referenced, and most of the sources I can instantly recognize as reliable. The notion that calling these conspiracy theories is NPOV is ridiculous on its face, as Rrius pointed out. I'll also draw your attention to Category:Conspiracy theories; some of these are probably more ridiculous than the Muslim Brotherhood ones. I don't see any objection to this article not based on editor POV, and I'm not sure what this influence vs. conspiracy business is, but the latter much better characterizes these claims. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural Note: This deletion nomination was originally placed directly in the Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 24 log, I have moved it to this subpage. You can find the editing history of the nomination on the daily log. Monty  845  15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, thank you to Korentop for figuring out how to propose this deletion. WP doesn't always make things easy. That said, an objection to the content of this entry could be met with an NPOV tag. If the name of the article is problematic, the entry could be moved to a new name or merged into a different article. Korentop's notion that the "very concept of this page violates NPOV" doesn't bear close examination. The entry is about a subject, however poorly named IMHO. Calling it a concept is just an attempt to up the ante, but we really needn't get metaphysical. The mainstream media seems to cover this topic without undue Angst. I don't doubt there were some battles between editors, reporters, and copy editors about just what to say, how prominently to play the story itself, how much to focus on Abedin herself, the broader attack on the State Dept., etc. Still, this is a controversy on the current US political scene that we are capable -- with effort and self-discipline -- of discussing and documenting. Once we decide to keep this entry, as I hope we will, I'll propose a name change. The relationship between this entry and Influence Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood is a subject for another time. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To expand my comment... I think we could build a good entry to respond to the 3rd part of the question Newt Gingrich has posed in this context: "The question ought to be asked across the board – what's the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, what are its various networks and to what degree does it now influence the government of the United States?" (emphasis added) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a coatrack of conspiracy theories. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC) See below for expanded rationale. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misreading WP:COAT, but I don't see the similarities between this article and any of the examples there. Rather, it resembles "factual information (including criticism) about a discredited scientific theory" from WP:WINAC. The article's title claims it will discuss MB conspiracy theories, and that's exactly what it does. Are you concerned about WP:SYN? Would you prefer a List of Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories title and format? --BDD (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously I can't speak for Carrite here, but the part I was thinking of is: "The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there." There is actually no subject here, just a hook upon which to hang random negative statements about the Muslim Brotherhood. (edit) Also, because I don't think that the subject of the article meets the GNG as a subject, I couldn't support a list of these theories either.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't follow. What are the "coats," if not the conspiracy theories themselves? I can understand objections based on notability, but in terms of content and structure, it's just a less developed form of, say, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories or Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the other articles; perhaps they should go too, or maybe not. My argument is that "Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories" as a single topic is not discussed in RS as far as I can see, so it shouldn't have an article.  Any individual conspiracy theory involving the MB which is discussed in RS should have an article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @BDD: Let me rephrase. This is pure original research. compiling a mass of unrelated, unsubstantiated "conspiracy theories" (term undefined) under a single heading as if that is an encyclopedic topic instead of the amalgam of trivia that it is. As soon as there is any scholarly coverage by anyone anywhere on the planet of "Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories" as an integrated whole, there might be a glimmer of a rationale for keeping this, ummmm, closet stuffed with crap. But there isn't and there won't be, in all likelihood. Carrite (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. COATRACK is just an opinion essay. One would be correct in saying my citing it as a deletion rationale was improper. One would be incorrect in saying that the general idea is inapplicable here — that's exactly what this piece is. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Carrite. To expand, it seems to me that there is not a single unified topic with coverage in reliable sources that could sensibly be called "Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories."  What we have here instead is a bunch of random unrelated conspiracy theories which involve the Muslim Brotherhood.  Any given one of those may or may not satisfy the GNG, but as a group, there is no coverage in reliable sources.  Compare this topic with the other articles in Template:conspiracy theories, which mostly do independently meet the GNG to see what I mean. I will say that the argument that the article violates NPOV is not a valid reason for deletion, though.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no reason provided for deletion. If the article does not reflect NPOV as some voters stated, them change it as per guidelines. I see no valid reason provided for this AFD anywhere. Poyani (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See the procedural note above for the nominator's rationale. Other than the fact that this piece is start-to-finish original research compiling unrelated wack theories from the internets, you're right, nobody has provided a valid reason for this AFD anywhere. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. All of the theories mentioned are notable, and the article follows the standard format that Wikipedia usually uses to discuss general categories of conspiracy theories (for instance, the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is laid out in a similar fashion and I don't think it could be described as a coatrack). If the individual theories discussed in this article deserve to have their own separate pages, then the proper thing to do would be to split this page, not to delete it. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is one of a number of WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments in this AFD. That there are a number of other articles which may or may not be encyclopedic, but which we're not actually discussing here is not relevant to this discussion.  Also, if the individual theories are notable, the proper thing to do is to write articles about them, not "split this page."  After all, if it were an argument to keep a page just because the individual items enumerated on it were notable, why not have The first ten random notable things I thought of just now?  The point is that in order to have an article which is a list of things like this one is, the grouping itself must be notable.  This is not a notable grouping, whether or not the items grouped in it are notable.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - pretty crazy ideas, but arguably notable ones. This content should be on Wikipedia somewhere, and it doesn't belong in the main Muslim Brotherhood article, so why not a separate article? Robofish (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should note: on looking around further, it seems that some of these conspiracy theories have made their way into Wikipedia articles. There was one at Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations, which I've renamed to Muslim Brotherhood activities in the United States, but still depends on unreliable sources and states allegations as fact. There's another at Transnational organization, which seeks to compare the Muslim Brotherhood to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; that one I think is beyond saving, so I've nominated it for deletion. Robofish (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that rename. It was driving me crazy. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per Robofish. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Nonsense and prejudice is best exposed through objective description, based on reliable analysis and reporting. That's the justification for NPOV. Without it, we'd not be able to deal with anything unpleasant.  DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 29 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.