Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Berg conspiracy theories (3rd nomination)


 * 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 delete. RasputinAXP  c  22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nick Berg conspiracy theories
Non-notable conspiracy theory. Page is a dumping ground for original research and links to Blog topics. Topic not seriously considered in the media since the event first happened. DCAnderson 03:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If the information is important enough to be on Wikipedia at all, then merge with Nick Berg. --hello,gadr e n 03:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleteper my original nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCAnderson (talk • contribs) (Whoops, adding my real sig.)--DCAnderson 23:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete NO Merge per nom. --Strothra 03:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom, no merge - Rampent speculation is all this topic contains. San Saba 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 04:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge anything salvagable with Nick Berg. --Charles 05:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research --MarsRover 06:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and avoid merging the ramblings of an unsound mind. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to see the results of the previous nominations. How do I find those discussions?  Thanks. Phiwum 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous AfD vote is here - Articles for deletion/Nick Berg conspiracy theories (2nd nomination). Vizjim 11:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First one is here: Articles for deletion/Nick Berg conspiracy theories San Saba 12:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the above pointers. I have beeen enlightened by the previous discussions and agree with the anonymous editor who wrote, "The truth is a vibrating quantum blur- the viewer and the view create it. Let the truth be alive."  Just kidding.  Delete article but the  Nick Berg  page could include a discussion of the conspiracy theories.  Phiwum 14:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete rubbish original research. Vizjim 11:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px]] Delete violates WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SICK Morton devonshire 15:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OR, no merge. Sandstein 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Bwithh 18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as Original Research (No CSD for this), however, the ability of an article to accumulate vandalism is not criteria for deletion, otherwise we would be proposing Wikipedia for deletion daily. ~Kylu ( u | t )  02:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete junk, nothing to merge - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge anything salvagable with Nick Berg. Between the conspiracy theories on Nick Berg, and the conspiracy theories surrounding Abu Musab al Zarquawi, both may be fiction, or both could be true.  If you keep one side of the story, you have to keep the other.
 * Strong Merge - I believe that it's worth noting such inconsistancies on Nick Berg's assassination, even though the information is largely conjectural. Merge this with Nick Berg. - XX55XX 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NO Merge - "information is largely conjectural" - THE KING 04:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has survived two prior deletion attempts already. I get the impression there is a desire to sanitize this incident (i.e., only show the "official" POV). &mdash;204.42.17.67 13:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Above user's second contribution. His first contribution was to another AfD 13 minutes earlier.--DCAnderson 13:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is probably not very useful to imply that other Wiki editors are part of a conspiracy to "sanitize" Wikipedia. Just a thought. Phiwum 13:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Your use of the word "conspiracy" in your comment is interesting. &mdash;131.103.138.231 00:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not attack other editors. Remember to assume good faith.  See WP:AGF. --Strothra 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse me of attacking other editors. Good faith is always assumed.  But when event show otherwise, an impression is made.  Voicing that impression is not an attack.  For instance, I began the process of merging the content of this article into the Nick Berg article and the same editor who nominated this for deletion removed each section. &mdash;131.103.138.231 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you of anything. I observed your action.  You stated, "I get the impression there is a desire to sanitize this incident."  That is an attack upon the faith of other editors participating in the discussion.  There are policies on Wikipedia against this behavior.  Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. --Strothra 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The nominating editor called the article a dumping ground. Where is your complaint about his attack upon the faith of the hundreds of editors that have contributed to creating the article he seeks to delete?  When choosing to judge the work of another, do not employ double standards. &mdash;204.42.17.16 17:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per original research.--Jersey Devil 01:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To quote Kurt Weber, "Agglomerating already-available data does NOT constitute original research. In fact, that's what this whole encyclopedia is: an agglomeration of already-available data. Doing that is the OPPOSITE of original research--you're simply putting together data provided by others rather than going out and getting your own." &mdash;131.103.138.231 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia still requires that you provide verifiability in your claims. Just because data is available widely does not mean that it is true or verifiable.  One needs to cite their valid and verifiable sources.  The problem with this article is that it comes from sources which use no valid research at all thus the article is based on conjecture and thus origional research.  --Strothra 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is valid and verifiable that these are conspiracy theories. There are extensive resources to back up existence of the enumerated conspiracy theories provided in the article. &mdash;204.42.17.16 17:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is verifiable information that such a conspiracy theory exists but that does not make it encyclopedic. Anyone can have theories about anything but those theories are not encyclopedic because they exist.  One must establish a reason for their encyclopedic nature.  Either a theory has to have made a wide impact such as the Kennedy Assasination Conspiracy Theory or it has to be based on verifiable information but if a theory is based on verifiable information then it wouldn't really be a theory any longer.  This consipiracy theory is neither widely believed or widely publicized and is not encyclopedic. --Strothra 17:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who killed Nick Berg? - The Sydney Morning Herald (May 29, 2004)
 * Questions Surround Slain American in Iraq - The Guardian Unlimited (May 12, 2004)
 * Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts The Asia Times (May 22, 2004)
 * Berg Met With Shady Iraqi The Philadelphia Daily News (May 17, 2004)
 * Berg, Al Qaeda linked before - The New York Daily News (May 14, 2004)
 * Berg's encounter with 'terrorist' revealed - CNN (May 13, 2004)
 * Conspiracy theories surrounding Nick Berg and the video of his death death have been widely publicized. &mdash;204.42.17.16 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Still does not establish notability of a theory. Rather, all those articles state are that there is unprovable controversy over the circumstances of his death.  In one of your sources, you have a doctor who never saw his body contesting whether or not Berg was beheaded and was supported by a "forensic death expert" who's a doctor only because he holds a PhD and not a MD.  In another of those articles which discusses the supposed Berg-Terrorist connection, the article specifically states "the feds(FBI) concluded he had never actually met Moussaoui, who had friends and roommates at the same college." Just because controversies exists does not make them notable...or credible but that's not what's being debated here anyway.  My view on the deletion will remain. --Strothra 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the articles do establish that there is unprovable controversy, i.e., conspiracy theories, over the circumstances of Nick Berg's death. And since the articles come from major mainstream media sources, any claim that the subject of Nick Berg conspiracy theories is non-notable has been laid to rest.  &mdash;204.42.17.16 20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - The notability of the topic of Nick Berg conspiracy theories has been established by the list of links above. Here is an additional link: What happened to Nick Berg? - The Baltimore Chronicle (June 7, 2004). And here are some good examples of Nick Berg conspiracy theories: A working hypothesis and a resolution for the orange jumpsuit mystery, New evidence and observations on the Berg case. &mdash;204.42.17.16 21:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom--Bill 21:17, 26 May 2006 (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.


 * The following deletion discussion was orphaned and I'm adding a link in this AfD in case this topic is discussed again: Articles for deletion/Nick Berg conspiracy theories (1st nomination). -- Suntag  ☼  14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)