Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-birtherism


 * 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. Blueboy96 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Neo-birtherism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Neologism, see WP:NEO; the cited source does not use this term, and there is no indication that anyone else does. The article also violates WP:NPOV. I already redirected this once to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, but the author reverted me without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This page hardly violates NPOV any more than Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy page, which appears to be run by die-hard Obama operatives who are opposed to any discussion of the real concerns regarding Obama's birth documentation and categorize anyone who raises suspicions as a birther. No, I'm not a birther, as I fully believe Obama was born in Hawaii, as do most people who have seen the contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements. But there is something extremely unsettling about the way the press (and FactCheck-like organizations) have gone about obscuring and mischaracterizing the simplest facts about the controversy.  Why does FactCheck make that ridiculous fuss about having "examined, touched, handled," etc. the "original birth certificate" when it knows full well people will think it's talking about a 1961 document rather than what it really examined?  Why do countless news organization perpetuate that same silly misconception?  Why does Snopes pretend the whole controversy centers around the authenticity of the 2008 computer print-out, which nobody really cares about because the 1961 long form (if it exists) is what is at the heart of the controversy?


 * As to the neologism, feel free to find a more appropriate title for the article. But I would note that "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories" is just as made-up a title.


 * In short, there are a good number of thoughtful, serious people who can't understand why Obama won't release the 1961 long form and has engaged in so much obfuscation to avoid it. It has nothing to do with a belief that he was born in Kenya or otherwise outside of the USA.  Explanations such as "the birthers will never be satisfied" are mere opinion (which also violate NPOV), and explanations such "Hawaii only issues certifications" or "Hawaii can't because of privacy laws" are just outright lies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * CommentAs is evident from your post, you're attempting to use Wikipedia to argue a political position or promote a point of view. See WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and especially (given your username) Truth. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- I'm finding nothing out there in terms of reliable sourcing. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: Can't find one news reference to this term, so I have no idea how this could be sourced.  Talking Points Memo has used the term "birther curious" in jest, but I would not recommend we create an article on that passing joke.--Milowent (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As is evident from your post, you're attempting to use Wikipedia to argue a political position or promote a point of view
 * Please explain how it's "evident" from my post. You're awfully good at empty characterizations and stringing together meaningless acronynms, not so good at explaining your position.  And what did you say about the Barack Obama Conspiracy Theories article's deliberately misleading and repeated references to the "original birth certificate?"  That it grossly violates NPOV and the whole article is "attempting to argue a political position"?  And did you say you violently object to the absence of any sourcing in the first paragraph of the conspiracy article? Thought so!
 * P.S. Please feel free to address any of the seven actual points made in the post (of course you can't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We're looking at the article as an article - this debate isn't about Neo-birtherism vs. Original old-school Birtherism, Long-form vs. Certification, or any other topic. At AFD, we evaluate whether the article is compliant with policy, or whether it can be made to be compliant with policy. If not, it is deleted. We're not here to refute the concerns about Obama's birth certificate, and doing so would not change anything about this article. If what the article says is neutral, backed by reliable sources independent of the subject, and if the subject is notable, then the article should be kept - doesn't matter what it says, if it says it in a manner compliant with policy. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. As noted by the nominator, the term isn't even used by the single cited source. Dissatisfaction with the consensus reached in an article is not a valid reason for an editor to create a shadow article on the topic. Also, the article seems like a venue for reproduces the thoughts of one National Review columnist. That's not appropriate because the specific column hasn't reached independent notability for its own article. --JamesAM (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. In this case, we have an article based on a single source. That source does not use the term referred to by the article. Further, the article is (admittedly) non-neutral, in that it lists seven criticisms of the administration and others' conduct in this matter - none of those seven criticisms being central to the definition of Neo-birtherism. The topic could be defined without rehashing the concerns about the birth certificate issue - the lead, if cleaned up, would be sufficient to that purpose. The article tilts too far toward reiterating those concerns, which is what makes it non-neutral (or unbalanced, if you prefer). I will say that we live in remarkably bizarre times politically, and any new movement (such as neo-birtherism) could gain traction. If it does, and if the term gains widespread use, then an article may be justifiable. But I don't think this one can be a neutral and balanced topic until that coverage comes out to offer dissenting viewpoints directly in the context of neo-birtherism. So, the article is non-neutral and unsourceable at worst, and premature at best. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. An unnecessary content fork for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Also, as noted by others, the term Neo-birtherism does not appear to be notable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per policy on neologisms and original research. The term exists in a single blog, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Armbrust, Ultraexactzz, Nsk92, and Tarc - it violates many rules:- WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:FORK, etc., as noted above. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy on WP:Any Criticism of the High Exalted Obama.TruthfulPerson (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you actually consenting to the deletion (which would allow us to avoid the remaining 6 days of AFD discussion), or are you just being sarcastic? NawlinWiki (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, TP, your comment violates WP:AGF. You might note that we've devoted an entire article to the right-wing rubbish about the "Bill Ayers presidential election controversy". JamesMLane t c 23:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think it likely that sourcing could be found to add a sentence along these lines to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article: "Some critics of Obama, in addition to or instead of questioning his eligibility, have charged that he is deliberately concealing documents about his birth, and have suggested that such documents might show information he prefers to keep private, such as that his mother's husband was not his biological father."  A one-liner like that, with a citation, would give this aspect of birtherism as much attention as it merits.  The rest of this article consists of a screed in favor of the author's POV. JamesMLane t c 23:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That works for me. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a poorly written blog page that has no place on Wikipedia plus there are no sources at all. If anything parts of this information might fit on the Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories page but it certainly doesn't need its own page. I Feel Tired (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - We're just done with winter around here, but it looks like snow... Nothing reliably sourced, part of a long-term problem. I can't see any reason for further discussion on keeping the article, just discussion on how to handle the editor. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy/snow delete. Close enough to WP:A10. Numerous violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. — Rankiri (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Birtherism", while silly, is clearly notable, but this "neo-birtherism" doesn't appear to have attracted any significant level of attention. Everyking (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Snow. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2010 (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.