Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings


 * 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. --Core des at 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings



 * Delete a compilation of Original research and sources that fail WP:RS by a wide margin, for example citing Jeff Rense and Alex Jones (radio). Legitimate sources are cited, however, they do not give support to what is being said. The page goes beyond being unencyclopedic; its just more conspiracycruft. Brimba 09:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep better collect this crap in the article about the conspiracy theories than to spoil the main article. The rumors and theories are notable by themselves Alex Bakharev 09:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is definitely NOT original research. -- ¿Exir? ¡Kamalabadi!  11:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. We have similar pages on other such conspiracies, and at the very least it keeps the main article on the bombings clear of this stuff, as Bakharev suggests. It doesn't appear to be OR - would prefer more solid references and external links, but with such subject matter that may be difficult to obtain. Grutness...wha?  13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep :: This article brings togatehr in one place what would otherwise be spread across several articles, each documenting one rumour accoridng to its source. -- Simon Cursitor
 * Delete - There are some RS sources, but lots of prisonplanet and rense sources. NN. - Crockspot 14:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment as above, better to keep this garbage in one article rather than incorporate it into the main. Suggest sources that do not meet WP:V and WP:RS, which appear to be most of them at this point, be deleted. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, heavily revise, and suggest a less painful article title.--Rosicrucian 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and Crockspot. Article is heavily dependent on unreliable sources. Bwithh 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencylcopedic per nom Tbeatty 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article is not claiming these rumors are true; it’s just documenting the rumor. Also this article was on AFD before and was voted keep; see Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Theories about the July 2005 London bombings.
 * Keep. We have similar articles for other terrorism-related conspiracies... we should always try to present all sides of a debate, no matter how crappy they are. --- RockMFR 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is well referenced.  The information should be kept.  However, the disposal of this information in this specific article is up for question.  The article name is SO unweildy that it seems to demand a move or a merge. --Jayron 32  05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be in line with WP:FRINGE.  JASpencer 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There are 2 articles dealing with the actual setting off of bombs by four men. A list of rumors with no citations to show they exist beyond the mind of the editor who inserted them in the article, is not encyclopedic. If there were a specific rumor which was reported, say, in the New York Times and the Times of London and covered on the BBC that provided a coherent alternative explanation for the bombs going off, that rumor, even if not proven true, might be worthy of an article. This collection of vague claims isn't. Edison 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)\
 * Delete per nom. Fails to cite to reliable sources meeting Wikipedia’s requirements under WP:RS, and is mostly original research violating WP:NOR.  Further, Wikipedia prohibits “Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position”.  This article is a cruft-swamp-magnet.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo  20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable conspiracy theories; don't belong in main article.-csloat 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Based on other similar articles and the past deletion discussion, Wikipedia does have a place for such articles. The reason I say weak is because of the sources used in the article. -- moe.   RON   Let's talk  01:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs re-working and reliable sourcing, but as said above there is precedent for articles such as this. Robovski 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I have seen a few similar articles - none of them seem very good. I'm not convinced that a collection of "rumours and conspiracy theories" is inherently notable and I agree with Morton's assessment of the article. GabrielF 22:41, 9 November 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.