Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quebec City mosque shooting 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Quebec City mosque shooting conspiracy theories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Classic example of WP:FRINGE. In the article's own wording, "There is no evidence that supports these conspiracy theories" so we should not be promoting them.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762; 19:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:NFRINGE, MordeKyle. Under the section: Notability vs. acceptance, it states: Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. It is notable because it has been reported on by CBC and Global News, two major Canadian news organizations. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories and Pizzagate conspiracy theory either have no supporting evidence or have been debunked. But the articles haven't been deleted because they are notable under WP:NFRINGE. Same goes for this article. TheBD2000 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TheBD2000 I have, maybe you should take your own advice and read it. Specifically the part that states, "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively..."  { MordeKyle }  &#9762; 21:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MordeKyle, These theories have already been reported on by CBC, Global News, BuzzFeed, Vice Media, and Patheos. This seems extensive enough to me. TheBD2000 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TheBD2000 what amounts to nothing more than a brief mention, is not even remotely significant coverage.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762; 22:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * CommentIt "seems extensive enough" to you, that's fine. Understandably as the article creator you believe the sourcing is sufficient. The ensuing discussion will determine if it is. However, a few brief mentions in reliable sources such as CBC and Global are probably not enough, and the other sources are probably less than useful. I'm not certain if BuzzFeed is considered a RS, and Vice is also questionable: what are their editorial standards, for example.  freshacconci  (✉)  22:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:FRINGE is of course the main issue, as is WP:POVFORK. WP:NFRINGE states that "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." We are not there at this point and per WP:CRYSTAL we can't predict whether or not this becomes as notable as Sandy Hook or Pizzagate. WP:RECENTISM also applies: the actual event, the shooting, is clearly notable. Any conspiracy surrounding the shooting is not at this time. Simply being covered by media is not sufficient per WP:RECENTISM. It must be demonstrated that the topic has moved or is clearly moving into an historical view. It hasn't.  freshacconci  (✉) 21:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction is not to give a soapbox to such garbage. "Rebel Media's Faith Goldy also doubted the official story," the article credulously states. No, really? Yes, we all know the existence of such articles as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. But this article offers much thinner gruel -- nothing beyond a single provocateur website and one dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist. And importantly, rather little coverage in its aftermath. What we had, I believe, was a passing minor phenomenon, of zero WP:LASTING notability. Delete on that basis. If the editor wishes to try and add it to the main article, he might. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that the editor has been trying to add content to the main article, and at least one other editor has objected. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He could add it to The Rebel Media, if nowhere else. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Junk informed speculations, unsubstantiated and born for the onlty reason of easy propaganda and political manipulation, what have to do with Wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia? Nothing. Technically: WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE, WP:POVFORK, WP:CRYSTAL ("..is not a collection of unverifiable speculation."), WP:NOTADVOCATE ("..is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political [...] Scandal mongering"), WP:BATTLEGROUND("..is not a place to [...]] carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear.") Carlotm (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Carlotm, I don't know where you're getting the idea that my article is "propaganda" from. It is verifiable and well backed by reliable sources and nothing in it is false. I don't know how you think I'm "nurturing prejudice" either. Please think before you write. TheBD2000 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TheBD2000: Carlotm isn't saying that your article is propaganda or that you're nurturing prejudice. The "easy propaganda and political manipulation" is clearly referring to the conspiracy theories themselves. Nor does Carlotm say the sources are false per ce (if I'm understanding his comments correctly). There are clearly some legitimate sources that have discussed the conspiracy theories as a conspiracy theories -- and to be clear (I'm speaking to Carlotm here) that neither the article itself, the available media sources nor TheBD2000 are claiming that any of this is true but rather that the theories exist. This is the tricky part when dealing with fringe topics. An article on Holocaust denial only serves to discuss the existence of that belief itself and gives no legitimacy to the denial of the Holocaust. Likewise, we are under no obligation to give equal time or balance between the fact of the Holocaust and the denial of the Holocaust. If I believed this article's topic was notable, well-sourced, and wide-spread, I'd have no problem whatsoever with the article being kept. The conspiracy theories exist. With the internet any tragic event is surrounded by conspiracy theories almost instantly. What we're attempting to do is establish notability.  freshacconci  (✉) 02:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TheBD2000, I didn't say that your article is propaganda, nor that you nurture prejudice. I said that junk, unsubstantiated speculations can only be born for propaganda and political manipulation, excluding of course another possible explanation: the love of an unstable mind for theories, the less substantiated the better. Nonetheless you assumed a big responsibility on creating a page like this, broadcasting unevidenced fringe theories, as your lede clearly states they are; doing so, you gave them an unwarranted weight. So I ask you why, for what reason, did you, among the thousand you could have, create this one page, infringing specific, important and basic policies of English Wikipedia? Carlotm (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a fair question. I'm sure TheBD2000 in good faith created an article s/he thought was needed. As I said above, the topic itself is not the issue. We can step back and see that it's disheartening that these kinds of conspiracy theories pop up in the wake of tragedy. But that's not why we're here at Wikipedia. If this was a notable topic -- and in a year in may be -- there would be absolutely no problem with this article existing. We can dislike the topic while understanding the encyclopedic value of presenting information on the topic. The Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are an important topic, as distasteful as the theories themselves may be.  freshacconci  (✉) 03:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Freshacconci, of course we are often on the limes between censorship and legitimate limitations.
 * Allow me; your mention about Holocaust denaials is misplaced, on the side of notability. This case is about running beyond the alternate fake explanation of the last in time terrorist act. It is not even worth to spend a chat about these speculations, less so to write an article. Carlotm (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's not what we do here. We try to determine if a topic is suitable for inclusion based on policy and notability guidelines. Our only opportunity to really allow personal opinions to enter into it is when we decide if a topic fits well within our policy threshold of inclusion (this article, I believe at this time, is not verifiable per WP:CRYSTAL, which is policy). After that we can only follow the sources. If the sources were there (thereby negating WP:CRYSTAL), there would be no reason to delete the article. We're not speculating, nor are we trying to decide whether or not the conspiracy theories are true. Even if I were inclined to believe that (I'm not), Wikipedia would not be the place for it. But since we're not speculating or chatting about what-ifs, then we're actually free to be dispassionate and weigh the information at hand. However, questioning TheBD2000's motives for creating the article very much violates WP:AGF. Add not just the questioning of motives, but questioning TheBD2000 at all on the matter. It's not relevant and frankly quite rude.  freshacconci  (✉) 04:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, here we have "to determine if a topic is suitable for inclusion based on policy and notability guidelines". And I was doing just that. The fringe theorists are those speculating around actuality. So don't tell me. My rhetorical questioning of TheBD2000, was all but rude. It is my duty "to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians", putting forward clear reasons for that. In the same time I was soliciting an explanation for TheBD2000 being so out of touch with Wikipedia policies. And that is my opinion, of course. Carlotm (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly is not your "duty" to express doubts about the conduct of other editors, again per WP:AGF. You comment on the article, you comment on the edits; you do not comment on the other editors unless they are doing something disruptive. Are you arguing that TheBD2000 is being disruptive by creating the article and defending the article in an AfD? If that's the case, this discussion is not the place for it. And I can tell you, I see no evidence in this discussion that TheBD2000 has been disruptive.  freshacconci  (✉) 11:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete with fire. We do not need to accord weight to WP:FRINGE theories by people with no credibility. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No credibility? What do you mean by that, Bearcat? It's obvious that Wikipedia doesn't consider the conspiracy theorists themselves credible, but many other articles with conspiracy theories from non credible theorists exist on Wikipedia. These theories themselves have been reported on by many mainstream media, including CBC, Global News, and Vice Media, as well as many minor media outlets. This seems important enough to stay. TheBD2000 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it really doesn't "seem important enough to stay". If you have to rely on Patheos and Steemit and the primary source website of one of the conspiracy theorists just to get up to eight citations, then there's just not the depth of coverage that would be required — to make it "important enough to stay", you would need to show evidence that it satisfies the will people still be looking for an article about this in ten years test, not just a couple of pieces of "in the moment" coverage that would fall in the Wikipedia is not a news outlet bucket. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable WP:FRINGE theory unsupported by WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * just fyi, User:Bearcat. Patheos is a highly reputable source.   However, User:TheBD2000 might want to consider that the Patheos article cited in this article  is a satire/take down of this conspiracy theory.  Citing this particular Patheos article in this case  is sort of like citing  Andy Borowitz or The Onion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying Patheos is unreputable for what it does. But it's not news media that would constitute a particularly useful source in an article about a news story. Bearcat (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete because this has WP:FRINGE everywhere. I don't think conspiracy theories about a shooting at a mosque can be compared to conspiracy theories about a shooting at an elementary school that had nearly five times the number of casualties. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How does the number of casualties matter when we're discussing conspiracy theories, Cyrus the Penner? What matters is the fact that conspiracy theories are circulating about this event, they're receiving coverage from the media, and they need to be covered by Wikipedia! TheBD2000 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As horrible as this will sound, Quebec City sounds minor compared to Sandy Hook. The conspiracy theories, even moreso. Sandy Hook would make sense, given the gun debate in the U.S., but I don't see how Quebec City would count. The political climate seems much calmer in Canada, from an American standpoint. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete people come up with conspiracy theories of all sorts of stuff. Alex Jones for example whose has made up conspiracies about this event has also made up conspiracies about pretty much any other newsworthy event in recent history. My suggestion would be to condense the text and sources and possibly merge them as a section in the main article about the event. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with above reasoning.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:29, 5 April 2017 (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.