Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina


 * 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. Does not appear to be consensus at this point in time for any of the options discussed, including keep, delete, merge. Further merge discussions may take place as an editorial option, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I've nominated this page for deletion as very little of it is Reliable Source or notable. That which is may not even be encyclopedic enough for a footnote. What little else is leftover belongs in various other Katrina, organization or BLP articles.

Nothing here, either individually or in the aggregate, justifies an article. The whole thing is, at best, what? Eight quotes or so? 99.141.241.60 (talk) (completed by Paul B (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC))


 * Keep. This has a dreadful title. It should be something like Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution. However there has been quite extensive discussion of this topic from various sources, and they are discussed in reliable sources. In fact most of this is sourced to notable books on the Katrina phenomenon. Most of the other sourcing is from newspapers, so I see little wrong with most of the sourcing. The article was created as a spin-off from the main Katrina article, as the topic was overweighting the main article. Delting it will just burden the main article again. Such spin-offs are normal when sections become overlong. Paul B (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. - An article in search of a title, or bits of trivially notable mutterings in search of a storage draw? It'll be interesting to see how this progresses but pared down the one or two utterances that remain could easily be absorbed into more relevant articles.99.141.241.60 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Except Wikipedia doesn't define trivia, all reference works are bits of trivia strung together into a narrative. Calling something "trivia" is just a way of saying, "I don't like it." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do recognize the notability of some of the quotes, I merely disagreed with the need for a full article, hence my characterization as "trivially notable". I've changed my position to Merge and entered it below. Note that my ip has changed from 99...60 to this new one -->99.142.13.144 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This one is a lot closer than I thought it would be to clearing the notability bar. One could, I suppose, compile similar explanations for virtually every major natural catastrophe — which means this should be nipped in the bud. But this particular page is reasonably well documented and it may be argued that it meets muster. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The entire article could return here, from where it came:Speculations for the cause of Hurricane Katrina    .99.141.241.60 (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Seems to pass WP:NOTE and WP:FRINGE with respect to sourcing. Some of these "theories" garnered a decent amount of media attention at the time.  The other option would be merging this in with another Katrina article, but that might just serve to clutter up the other article. -- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 23:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Merge into Social effects of Hurricane Katrina. There has previously been a more extensive listing of quotes and suggested causes, but its current content represents culling down to that which has been thoroughly sourced. Frankly, I'd like to restore the bit about the false attribution of a quote in this vein to Pat Robertson. While he did not attribute the storm to the lesbianism of Ellen Degeneres, the fake report of him having done so got picked up by some real news sources. bd2412  T 00:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Changing vote to merge into Social effects of Hurricane Katrina, the latter being a short article which is an approrpiate place to house religious conjecture arising as a result of the disaster. bd2412  T 13:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider a standardized title for this type of article, it isn't grammatically correct. Where is the Pat Robertson quote? (I just added) Don't merge into Social effects of Hurricane Katrina, that article is about displacement of people and job loss, this material would be WAY off topic. My vote is a name change to Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution as the standard naming convention. I could see 9/11 as divine retribution or any other tragedy written up this way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This was created as a result of talk on a comunbity page. I think a rename would be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Divine retribution. I think it is important to place these claims in their proper context.  Most (if not all) calamitous events and natural disasters are seen as a form of Divine retribution by those who see the world through religious eyes.  Katrina was hardly unique in this.  Discussed out of context, in an article focused specifically on Katrina, we give the claims and those who made them undue weight... however, if summarized and discussed in a proper context (as modern examples of the concept of divine retribution) that problem is resolved. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, having a whole section on Katrina in the Divine retribution article would be undue weight. It's a miniscule aspect of the the general topic, which should cover the whole concept, its origins (Book of Job), theology and important historical instances. I think it would be like merging an article on a small Spanish village into Europe. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about giving this a whole section? I said we should summarize.  The claims we are discussing are note worthy modern examples of the religious belief in Divine retribution... and as such I think they are most appropriately mentioned in the article about the belief in Divine retribution.  However, I would certainly agree that we don't need an entire section devoted to these examples.  We could probably cover them in a few short sentences.   Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then it seems to me that what you are proposing is not really merging at all, but a de facto deletion with a brief mention in an article on a much much larger topic. The question here is whether the Katrina debate is worthy of a separate article (which might be linked to from a brief mention in the main articles). In this respect it's no different from the question whether the imaginary small Spanish village deserves its own article or not. That should be determined on its merits, but if a merger is deemed appropriate it would be to the "next level" (into the article on the local region or whatever). Paul B (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... I don't want to get into a debate over the meaning of the term "merge". You seem to understand what I am talking about.  I call what I am talking about a merger... if you want to call it something else, fine.  My point is simply that I think the best place to discuss these claims is in the Divine retribution article, and I don't think they belong in an article focused exclusively on Katrina. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep—adequately sourced. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 17:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Speculations for the cause of Hurricane Katrina - It blends seamlessly with the second paragraph to be exact. It's really quite perfect. Note that my ip has changed - I am the 99.X ip from above.....99.142.13.144 (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a section in an article on the political effects. How are these political effects? bd2412  T 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be our exact article here on AFD already, perfectly appropriate: "Even more fanciful speculation asserted the hurricane was divine retribution for any of a number of provocations, including politically issues such as the War in Iraq[39][dead link], (most famously by New Orleans' own mayor Ray Nagin in a 2006 MLK day speech), and U.S. pressure for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza[40]; and domestic issues such as abortion, and tolerance for homosexuality.[41][42]"99.142.13.144 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are conflating the speculated cause with the actual effect. In this case, the event, the hurricane was the stimulus that lead to the socal effect, which was the tendency of people to assert divine retribution after the fact. This is not a political effect unless it can further be shown to have had an effect on voting behavior or public policy. bd2412  T 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not "conflating" anything. I simply pointed out that the entire article under AfD discussion here is contained within the section so perfectly titled, Speculations for the cause of Hurricane Katrina The roughly 8 or so quotes could also find themselves a home in one of the 2 or 3 other merge suggestions above. I simply pointed out that the article's contents were already completely covered in the encyclopedia.   99.142.13.144 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The section may be "perfectly titled", but it is in the wrong article. bd2412  T 23:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also identical coverage in every way, only more concise. This fact underscores how unnecessary this free standing and poorly titled article really is. Merge, and I now agree not delete, seems the only rational encyclopedic answer.99.142.13.144 (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete content fork and undue weight, essentially a listing of trivial ravings from the weakminded. It would be hard to find any major disaster globally (AKA "acts of God") that is not described as caused by God as a punishment (for liberal attitudes to gays, for giving away land to ones "enemies," for failing to enforce religious laws, etc...) A certain subset of the human population likes to ascribe agency to natural disasters, and some others seek the public attention of such moments to broadcast propaganda about their causes. There is nothing that makes this commonplace behavior unusual, special, or particularly notable in the case of Katrina. If some of these religious and political figures utterances on this matter are notable, then it will be mentioned on their biographical pages.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution. The phenomenon of multiple notable people characterizing Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution, for wildly varying reasons, is notable.  If we end up with "as divine retribution" pages for other disasters, that's okay. --Alynna (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If kept, prefer Alynna's title TheGrappler (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alynna, the logic in the case of the article, either under this name or the name you suggested, would be that there should also be articles on 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami as divine retribution, 2003 Bam earthquake as divine retribution, 1883 eruption of Krakatoa and ensuing tsunami as divine retribution, 2010 Pakistan floods as divine retribution, The Great Chicago Fire of 1871 as divine retribution. Those are ones just off the top of my head that i know would meet this criteria. You would find it very difficult to find a disaster with 100s of casualties that does not have these facile "god is punishing us" statements. It's not independently notable in any instance that I'm aware of (even the Krakatoa eruption, which led to the first Islamic-based resistance to dutch rule and some think was the forerunner of later Islamist militancy in Indonesia, shouldn't be handled that way; it should be handled in the relevant history articles).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with such articles, if there has been significant debate that the 2003 Bam earthquake, or any of these other events, have been instances of divine retribution. While I'm sure you can find someone who has made such claims, the fact is that some events produce significant claims of this sort, and others do not. Alynna rightly says that there would be nothing wrong with such articles if there were demonstrably notable claims along these lines. It's the same with conspiracy theories. Moon landing hoax and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are notable. Obama is an alien and South pole discovery hoax are not. It's all about notability. By your logic we should have no articles on notable conspiracy theories because that somehow would allow articles on non-notable ones to abound. But that's exactly why we have notability rules. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources in all those cases. Also lots of sources also support such gems as Death of Ariel Sharon as divine retribution (could write dozens, if not hundreds, of such articles about deceased people, particularly politicians and religious leaders). The point is -- this is trivia. A little bit in Katrina article to the effect that "some people said it was God's work because of teh geyz, teh godlessness, the this, the that" and be done with it. This just adds to the umaintainable clutter. The first section calls it a failure to support Israel and goes on at great length. The second section quotes Al Qaeda (every time anything bad happens to one of their enemies they call it god's will). What a mess.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked Ariel Sharon was still alive. Sort of. If Sharon's stroke had produced lengthy discussion rather than a few ad hoc comments then we might well have such an article. Regarding the notable conspiracy theories, there are multiple sources in this case too. As for the content, the two significant parts here are the "gays-abortion" argument, typically coming from the usual suspects within America (plus one stray German) and the "abandoning Israel" argument, which is pretty much distinctive to this event. They make it notable, IMO. But once that threshold has been passed it is appropriate to include other views, and the obvious counter-arguments. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The man's a vegetable. I remember all the gleeful "god has struck him down" bullshit from various quarters when he had his stroke. At any rate, you can't be reasoned with, so i'll leave it alone.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Really. "you can't be reasoned with" means I continue to disagree with you. I could as easily say that you can't be reasoned with because you have the effrontery to continue to disagree with me. Not helpful. Katrina, for whatever reason, is distinctive precisely because it has brought out wider scholarly discussion of this concept, which other distasters have not. I actually looked up "9/11" and "divine punishment" an kept getting references to Katrina . Paul B (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, that you do a google search and you think it "proves" something can't be helped. All of those examples have attracted lengthy consideration in this vein. Let's take 9/11. God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.-- Jerry Falwell. The deadly events of 9/11 were direct outpourings of divine retribution. -- Fred Phelps. This was God's wrath -- Osama bin laden. In this book, you're looking at, on the one side, the religious right, who sees 9/11 as divine retribution against the United States for sins like being too permissive to homosexuals, and on the other side, on the left, you have 9/11 as this conspiracy that was committed by the United States government against its own people. -- Matt Taibbi, summarizing his book The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire. The Hijackers and the American evangelists agreed that god was angry at america. . Whole book on the subject Where was God on Sept. 11. . Etc. Etc. If one goes to a proper research library, you will find extended commentary on this type of discourse going back 100s of years. Do you know what a Jeremiad is?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that a "proper research library" would cover such things suggests that they are amenable to encyclopedic treatment. We do, after all, mention Falwell's response in Reactions to the September 11 attacks. bd2412  T 17:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you are just gong round in circles. My point, which you have spectacularly missed, was that the Katrina event appeared in almost half of the links even though it was not even in the search terms. We all know that this phenomenon is linked to a more general one. Shakespeare is linked to the wider subject of English literature. Louis XIV in linked to the wider subject of Absolute Monarchy (and French history, and many other subjects). The fact that there is wider phenomenon of "sightings of aliens" does not mean that we shouldn't have articles articles on Roswell, or less well known "sightings" such as Berwyn Mountain UFO incident, Rendlesham Forest incident, and many many others. This is the point you don't seem to get. If an article on 9/11 and this discourse were to be created it would have to be addressed on its own merits. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete -- this should be mentioned in the main article with one or two examples. Making it an exhaustive list doesn't add encyclopedic value, imho. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 21 September 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.