Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy 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 no consensus. Those advocating deletion suggest that this article's topic is not studied by Philosophers in a way that would convey notability and/or that it serves as a POVFORK/COATRACK from Conspiracy theory. Those advocating keep suggest that there are enough philosophical works in reliable sources to support the article topic's existence. This AfD's closure is complicated by the posting to the Fringe Noticeboard. A neutrally worded message on a noticeboard is not CANVASSING however the posting in this instance was hardly neutral. While it did not directly mention this AfD merely the article, it seems to have drawn attention in the sense that the AfD had been open for two weeks prior to that posting and the majority of participation, including nearly all delete !voters, followed that notice. However, as CANVASS is a behavioral policy and there was a split in the vote of those who came following the FRINGE posting I have given full weight to all editors views expressed here. As such there is no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy of conspiracy theories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and/ or WP:SYNTH A loose necktie (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've consulted the NOR page and the section on synthesis, and I don't think this article has these problems. I've removed one paragraph anyway, which might be objectionable on notability grounds. And I changed the introduction to be a simple straightforward statement of the topic.


 * I would note that the content is largely, though not exclusively, a summary of summaries, as can be seen by looking at the references. For example, in one section, I repeatedly cite David Coady's introduction to his book Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate, in which he summarizes the published articles on this topic up until 2006. Isn't that exactly what I'm supposed to do?
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knuteson (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Knuteson is the creator of the article and the major contributor to it. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Summarizes a topic from the academic literature without advancing a new thesis about it. It might need a going-over with the encyclopedic-tone-alizer, but the subject is legitimate and the sourcing is OK. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the purpose of the Conspiracy Theory article? To summarize the credible, scholarly literature on the topic? I would expect a "Philosophy of" article to be a good deal more "meta" and to focus on the history and impact of the scholarship itself. ApLundell (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, basically per XOR'easter. bd2412  T 19:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no branch of philosophy, per sources, that is called "Philosophy of conspiracy theories." This is a blatantly false claim. There's a plethora of work on conspiracy theories, in general or about particular ones, their origins, their effect on society and people, and so on. (The text looks like a student's paper, by the way, one of the avalanche of papers that are trying to find their way onto Wikipedia lately.) At best, this text needs to be draftified and get a serious make over. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. (I assume I can vote for a page I originated, although my support is already implicit.) It seems The Gnome is suggesting that one of the sources is illegitimate because it, apparently, characterized the philosophy of conspiracy theory as a "branch" of philosophy. The Gnome calls this a "blatantly false claim." It is not clear which source is the offending one, so that makes checking the context difficult. In any case, I'm not sure it is quite fair to call this a "blatantly false claim." Personally, I would prefer to describe the philosophy of conspiracy theory as a subfield of applied epistemology, which is a subfield (or perhaps "branch") of applied philosophy, which may be considered a branch of philosophy. However, I think there is some ambiguity regarding what counts as a "branch" and that the word may legitimately be used in a loose way in this circumstance. The Gnome may disagree. But I don't think this criticism amounts to much, as there can be little question that it refers to a distinct, albeit small, subfield of philosophy. Knuteson (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Knuteson, could you then please name a few philosophers of conspiracy theories? Philosophers, please, and not sociologists, psychologists, analysts, reporters, critics, and so on. Additionally, could we locate any philosophy studies taught anywhere with Conspiracy Theories as their subject? All philosophical schools and subjects are taught somewhere. But, first, let's identify the philosophers, which denotes something quite specific. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. : There is nothing "loose" or vague about the term "philosophy", or its derivatives, i.e. "philosopher". We may be saying in everyday parlance, "Paul is being philosophical about his misfortune", but that is a metaphorical, colloquial use. -The Gnome (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bona fide philosophers who have written at least a couple articles on the subject include: Charles Pigden, David Coady, Steve Clarke, Quassim Cassam, Matthew Dentith, Lee Basham, Kurtis Hagen, Brian Keeley, Patrick Stokes and Juha Räikkä. Other philosophers who have written at least one article include on the topic include: Keith Harris, Neil Levy, Pete Mandik, Philippe Huneman and Marion Vorms (jointly), and Joel Buenting and Jason Taylor (jointly). Other notable scholars who are not philosophers, such as Cass Sunstein and Adrien Vermeule, have contributed to the discussion in philosophy venues (such as the Journal of Political Philosophy). As to whether it is taught at universities: According to Google, “Epistemology of Conspiracy Theories” has been taught as a philosophy course, by Professor of Philosophy Aaron James, at the University of California, Irvine. I imagine it has been taught elsewhere to some degree, perhaps by some of the philosophers who publish in that area, though I don’t know the extent. Knuteson (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I should add that the Companion to Applied Philosophy (Wiley Blackwell, 2017) contains a chapter, “Are Conspiracy Theories Epistemically Vicious?” by Charles Pigden. This suggests that such questions are regarded as relatively representative of applied philosophy. Knuteson (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I should also add that the Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology (2019) has a chapter called ‘The applied epistemology of conspiracy theories: An overview’ by M. R. X. Dentith and Brian Keeley. (And I seem to have missed the work of philosopher Susan Feldman. I have probably missed others as well.) Knuteson (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Response to Knuteson:
 * Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. When a subject, e.g. conspiracy theories, is discussed and taught in classes of epistemology, that on its own does not make those subjects part of philosophy! Epistemology addresses such questions as, "What makes justified beliefs justified?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", etc? In the course of epistemological analysis one may focus on superstitions, delusions, or cults. But this does not make any of them part of philosophy! An expert in astrology or a conspiracy theorist would hardly be called a "philosopher." Therefore, all that stuff about epistemology is irrelevant.
 * The fact that, in philosophy classes, the epistemology of conspiracy theories is (sometimes) taught, and not conspiracy theories per se, should be edifying - and enough.
 * The poet Roger Angell writes regularly, and one would dare say gloriously, about baseball. Yet, this does not make the game part of the poetry canon.  Baseball can only be denoted as "poetry" metaphorically. Same goes for all those "philosophers who have written at least a couple articles on the subject" of conspiracy theories, whom you brought forth as evidence of your argument. If you'd care to read what they have written, you'd see that they're treating the subject as a social phenomenon; not as part of some philosophical endeavor. Random samples: Charles Pigden here; Quassim Cassam here; Patrick Stokes here; Brian L. Keeley here (quote "An analysis of the alleged explanatory virtues of unwarranted conspiracies suggests some reasons for their current popularity, while at the same time providing grounds for their rejection"); and so on.)
 * You cite the existence of a chapter titled “Are Conspiracy Theories Epistemically Vicious?” in a book for philosophy classes. But this is simply part of various issues in life that philosophers also examine, as I explained above. It does not mean, as you assert, that "questions [such as conspiracy theories] are regarded as relatively representative of applied philosophy." Applied philosophy has nothing to do with the plethora of unsupported, insane beliefs that are out there, nor is is "represented" by them! It merely offers an elementary warning against them; end of story. The effort to establish that there exists some kind of philosophy of conspiracy theories is both groundless and a serious liguistic mistake. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Response to The Gnome:
 * This is getting a little tiring. You had asked questions, and I answered them. Now you seem to be moving the goal post. I thought the question was whether bona fide philosophers have discussed the epistemic merits of conspiracy theories in philosophical venues, including philosophy journals and philosophy classes. They have. But now you are turning it into a question of whether this really counts as philosophy of that subject.
 * It is not that conspiracy theories are part of philosophy, it is that treating them philosophically is part of philosophy. The same can be said of religion and science (see point 2 below). In any case, I suppose we could trade examples and give competing arguments by analogy regarding the meaning of “philosophy of …” But the important fact is that the phrase “the epistemology of conspiracy theories” has been used in philosophical circles (as cited above) to refer to the philosophical exploration of the epistemic merits and demerits of conspiracy theories, and the phrase “the philosophy of conspiracy theories” has been used to indicate the same terrain while also being inclusive of ethical issues. (I have not yet included a section on the ethics of conspiracy theorizing, but I plan to). Is your objection that the page has been improperly titled? In that case the solution is not deletion, but simply changing the title. (Any suggestions?) Or is it that you think philosophers discussing conspiracy theories in the philosophical literature is not a topic that should be permitted on Wikipedia? If so, on what basis?
 * A “philosophy of science” class would not involve science, but rather philosophical discussions about science; a “philosophy of religion” would not teach religion, but rather involve a philosophical discussion about issues related to religion. Similarly, the philosophy of conspiracy theories involves philosophical considerations regarding ethical and epistemological issues related to conspiracy theories. (The epistemology of conspiracy theories covers the subset of epistemological considerations.)
 * In point 3 you seem to suggest that philosophers who discuss conspiracy theories in philosophy forums are somehow not doing philosophy when they do so. They are like, you seem to suggest, philosophers who happen to be talking about baseball, rather than discussing philosophical issues involved in baseball. (There is, in fact, a book called “The Philosophy of Baseball,” by a philosopher, which is presumably a work of philosophy.) In fact, if they are treating the matter philosophically, they are doing the kind of philosophy called “applied philosophy,” and it does count as philosophy—philosophy departments count this work as research in philosophy relevant to tenure and promotion. (It is unclear why the papers by Stokes and Keeley, in particular, are supposed to be examples of “not philosophy.” They most certainly count as philosophy. Whether they treat conspiracy theories as “a social phenomenon” is totally irrelevant. Of course conspiracy theorizing is a social phenomenon. One can philosophize about social phenomena—and I’m not using the word “philosophize” loosely here.)
 * Point 4 seems to reflect multiple misunderstandings (some of which have been discussed above), as well as lack of familiarity with the material. Also, your understanding of “conspiracy theory” seems highly skewed. In the philosophical literature, at least, the meaning that you imply has been largely repudiated. Coincidently, I have just finished, and will be adding, a new section on the discussion of the definition of conspiracy theory. Perhaps the fact that most academic philosophers who write on this subject don’t share your perspective rubs you the wrong way. But that is not a good reason to delete the page. (Since this is Wikipedia, anyone is free to check the references and make adjustments if something seems to be mischaracterized, or to add bits or sections, if one thinks I’ve given a skewed account.)
 * Although I am just learning the ways of Wikipedia, I have done the reading on this topic (everything I’ve cited, and more, but not everything written by everybody), and I have had some training in philosophy. I do know what I’m talking about, and I’d appreciate it if you did not insinuate otherwise. Knuteson (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree that continuing the discussion is tiring, and, I'd add, fruitless. You seem to have a very loose definition of philosophy, whereby the use of the term perforce renders a subject part of philosopy, through the back door of the "applied" term. So be it. I will only state here that I do not engage in personal invective, so your reference to insinuations is unfounded. All in all, I have presented my viewpoint, as you have yours, so it's high time I take my leave. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you. I do have to make some final remarks about all this, just for the record: The comment, “If you'd care to read what they have written, you'd see …” seems to imply that the person addressed had not read the works in question. I leave it to others to judge whether or not the inference, on my part, given the full context, was unfounded. But perhaps you just mean that, on your part, it was unintended. Fair enough.
 * As for the looseness of the definition, William James famously defined philosophy as the “uncommonly stubborn attempt to think clearly.” It may be that James and I, and the many philosophers who list unusual projects on their university websites, and the committees that recommend them for tenure and promotion, have a loose definition of philosophy. But I don’t think that makes the most sense of the situation. And I don’t think applied philosophy is some sort of “back door,” as though it isn’t fully legitimate. I suspect philosophy faculty members who contribute to journals such as the Journal of Applied Philosophy, and the International Journal of Applied Philosophy would concur with me on this. Knuteson (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This one is rather difficult to judge. I would suggest asking neutrally for participation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy to get some feedback from editors who regularly work in this content area. I personally am finding it difficult to parse out whether this is an actual field of study in and of itself, or whether it's just putting a philosophy lens through which to view conspiracy theories. This is one of those things where it requires some prior knowledge of the field to really properly assess. Good luck.4meter4 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the call for feedback. I hope that this issue can come to a resolution relatively quickly. I must say that I don’t see what is so difficult to judge about it. Questions and challenges have been presented, and they have all been answered. Further, there are Wikipedia pages for the philosophy of suicide, philosophy of space and time, philosophy of self, and philosophy of the social sciences—and that is just for areas that start with “s” (chosen at random). There are lots and lots such pages. In any case, philosophers have been interacting in a debate that has been going for two decades and has been commented on by historians. Surely the phenomenon is noteworthy. Is it just a problem with the title? Or is there some sort of bias against what these philosophers are saying? What exactly is the substance of the complaint? I feel like I've been playing whack a mole. Knuteson (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's more difficult to parse out abstract concepts as to whether they are accurate to the source material or an original synthesis supported by the source material. I haven't the background in philosophy (beyond what everyone takes in Philosophy 101 in college) to feel like I can form an opinion. I left a neutral note at the WikiProject to come here. I myself am not voting, Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll bet you anything that you won't find such a page in any other Wikipedia other than the English one. This is because "conspiracy theories" are a meme and and obsession of American culture since the assassination of President Kennedy, in 1963, which to my view is basically just still an unresolved mystery. But leaving that aside, there is a Conspiracy Theory page in the English Wikipedia in which these issues are all debated quite frequently. To my view, there in no need for an additional page on the "philosophy" of this meme and American cultural obsession. warshy (¥¥) 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It not true that this issue is not discussed in other countries. But that point is not relevant anyway. If it did have relevance it would suggest that the “conspiracy theory” page ought to be deleted too. As for “these issues” being debated quite frequently on the conspiracy theory page, please point me to the best examples of these discussions you’ve had about the philosophical literature on conspiracy theories. Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Our conspiracy theory article contains a plethora of philosophical opinions reflecting mainstream discourse on the subject. This article focuses primary weight on opinions that suggest some (unspecified) conspiracy theories shouldn't be dismissed because some are likely true. At best, it's a WP:POVFORK, and at worst, a WP:COATRACK. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you referring to? The article itself contains no significant discussion of the work of bona fide philosophers. Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Clearly a WP:POVFORK used for WP:COATRACKing. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Although this is new to me, I see that there are various different kind of COATRACKing. Which kind are you alleging? And what exactly is your evidence? Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, Guy Macon, LuckyLouie, and warshy, I have a question for you three. Before you recommended that this page be deleted, had you read any of the literature in question? What exactly had you read? Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Question - I would agree that many academic scholars have studied the generalized topic of “conspiracy theory” (certainly many historians have done so) and I accept that philosophers might have explored the topic from a philosophical perspective... but does anyone actually use the phrase “philosophy of conspiracy theory” to describe what they are doing? Is it the title of a university course somewhere? Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At least one: https://www.coursicle.com/ccnycuny/courses/PHIL/11203/ --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Clever class, but it doesn't represent a coherent research community or discourse. Instead, it's simply an offshoot of other skeptical Phil. 101-type classes. jps (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There has also been a book on the topic with that title. But I don’t think the title is really that important. There have been at least a couple courses on the “epistemology of conspiracy theories.” But that label leaves out the related ethical issues. There is a special issue of the journal Argumenta titled, “The Ethics and the Epistemology of Conspiracy Theories.” We could call it that. There is a book called “Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate,” we could call it that. A book chapter called, “The History of Conspiracy Theory Research,” has a section called, “The Debate in Analytical Philosophy on Warranted and Unwarranted Conspiracy Believes (Mid-1990s to the Present).” That’s a bit unwieldy. “Philosophy of conspiracy theories” is more succinct. But let’s not confuse the issue of whether there is something noteworthy, which legitimates its inclusion on Wikipedia, with the separate issue of what it should be called. Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. POVFORK/COATRACK as others have said. Any material on the "philosophy" of conspiracy theories should be included in the main Conspiracy theory article to make better sense in context, per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this suggestion. Let us not confuse reasons to move this material with reasons to delete it. Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * WEAK Delete Looks like a POVFORK/COATRACK to avoid the definition question.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t see how I’ve avoided the definition question. It is addressed at the top of the page. If you think this material is better suited for the “conspiracy theory” page, I’m fine with including it there. After all, what discipline concerns itself with careful analysis of concepts? Is it the social sciences? No, their discussions of definitions are usually perfunctory. It is philosophy. It is in the philosophical literature where one actually finds a rigorous scholarly debate going on about how best to understand the concept "conspiracy theory." Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an original essay not backed up by WP:SECONDARY sources. The narrative being spun is that there is some coherent group of "philosophers of conspiracy theories" when, instead, we simply have some philosophers who have written about conspiracy theories in various contexts. jps (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve used secondary sources as much as possible. The introduction to a volume of previously published essays that summarizes them is a secondary source. Further, it is not the case that only secondary sources may be used. And there is, in fact, a coherent group of philosophers writing about these issues and engaging each other in the process. Have you looked at the cited material? Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Now, let’s not lose focus. These are the issues, as I see them:
 * Does this page describe a genuine and distinct phenomenon that is noteworthy? I have argued that it does. There are books written about it, special issues of philosophy journals, and it is commented on by historians. Though I think “philosophy of conspiracy theories” is a good label, I don’t particularly care what you call it.
 * Does the page represent a POV, rather than faithfully describing the content? No one has yet provided any evidence that it is anything less than a fair and accurate description of the field (at least up through 2007, it is not yet complete). If one wants a reasonably easy way to check, just look at the introductions to the books or special issues on the topic (note that only the second half of the essays in the special issue of Argumenta are by philosophers, and that the contrast with the first half is striking).
 * Is this material redundant? It has been suggested that there already exists something equivalent on the “conspiracy theory” page. But this does not seem to be true.
 * If the material is noteworthy, accurate, and not redundant, then the question becomes: Where should it be located? Regarding this question, I don’t really care. I thought it made sense as a stand-alone page, especially since the “conspiracy theory” page is already long, and I intend to add more to this page. At some point it makes sense to separate topics. And there are, as mentioned above, countless “philosophy of …” pages. But if it is thought best to incorporate this material into the main “conspiracy theory” page, that is fine with me. Indeed, one could argue that the philosophical discussion of the definition should be prominent, for reasons mentioned above. Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. The recent influx of votes have appeared after a somewhat non-neutrally worded notification about this AFD posted at WP:FTN by  (as well as a neutrally worded one at WT:WPP by  for full disclosure).  I have no opinion on the outcome of this discussion itself, but I wanted to point out the potential issue with WP:CANVASS.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's some actual WP:CANVASSing to be considered: - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep At least given the arguments so far. Seems to fairly plainly just summarize the sources cited. So whatever the POV in this "POVFORK", I'm not sure I see exactly what it is, unless it is the POV of the sources cited, which is the POV we're supposed to be presenting. As to the FORK bit: Philosophy of mind/Mind, Philosophy of education/Education, Philosophy of happiness/Happiness, Philosophy of religion/Religion, I could continue if anyone really needs me to. Seems we fairly regularly fork off examinations specifically of the philosophy of the subject from main articles dealing with the subject as a whole.  G M G  talk  15:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Deacon Vorbis's note, User:Knuteson's responses to all the criticism raised above, and User:GreenMeansGo latest comments above, have all made me rethink my position regarding User:Knuteson's creation. I believe User:Knuteson does know the epistemological basis of the subject matter, and he has been able to weave a good enough WP article on it, which I've now added to my watchlist. He also knows how to write and how to argue on Wikipedia very well. Kudos! I now believe the article will be retained by Wikipedia in the end. I will change my "Delete" vote above, to a simple "Comment." Thank you, warshy (¥¥)  16:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep While I have some reservations I think this topic could potentially be a worthwhile addition. I intend to read the extensive list of references and will try to address the concerns about the article. --mikeu talk 17:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems like a good start to an article on an interesting topic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Two additional notes: 1 - I found about the RfC through WP:FRINGE/N and not through the method mentioned by Deacon Vorbis. 2 - I would also support a move of this content to the principal article; however I believe there is probably enough novel content in the article as it stands to support a stand-alone article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The issue is that articles like this, however well they may begin, are in danger of being taken over by POV edits over a longer period. But as long as enough people are interested in this topic - and I think there are - to keep an eye on it, it should be possible to even it out into something acceptable. Deb (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep notable topic, POV can be edited out. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  19:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete (Merge anything useful) Other "philosophy of" articles describe an actual field of study.  They describe the history of schools of thought on the topic, the describe how different movements among philosophers have held different amounts of academic sway over time.  In short, they are articles about the significant history of the scholarship itself.    Not so with this article. There's no real discussion about the philosophy as its own thing or the philosophy's impact on society.   It's is just a handful of "A specific academic once said this", which is the sort of thing that should be rolled into the main article as ordinary citations.  ApLundell (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The existence of other articles is not particularly relevant to a deletion discussion. 2) We are discussing the topic of this article, not its content. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)I am familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFF, but as OTHERSTUFF arguments are being made by "keep" !voters, I think it's valid to point out that those articles are very different than the article under discussion.
 * 2)Some relevant policies, such as WP:COATRACK, involve comparing an article's content to its nominal topic. ApLundell (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Very different" in what regard? Do you mean to say that a work entitled "An Introduction to the Philosophical Debate about Conspiracy Theories" is about something other than the philosophy of conspiracy theories?  G M G  talk  01:23, 2 November 2019 (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.