Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vatican Islam Conspiracy


 * 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.  Sandstein (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Vatican Islam Conspiracy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This "theory" was published in a comic book. Given that it has no mainstream support and its proponents are on the outer lunatic fringe, we need not provide them with a forum for airing their beliefs here. Biruitorul (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable as an examination of theological concerns (I can't speak for the comic book sector). Ecoleetage (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, at best merge to Alberto Rivera. Insufficient reliably sourced material for a balanced and encyclopedic treatment. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fringe beliefs. Also, this would seem to fail WP:V, as none of the claims made can really be backed up by reliable sources.  B figura  (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A mention of the "conspiracy" in Rivera's article might be worthwhile, but an entire article devoted to this is too much. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If we deleted this and applied the precedent rigorously, we'd also have to delete direct quotes from the Bible because the bible is not WP:RS and all sources about Abraham are based on one source that is not WP:RS, so we might as well delete Abraham since there is no WP:RS that he ever existed.  Can we have an undocumented double standard for verifiability which considers the number of adherents of the belief system?
 * Response That's an interesting observation. Maybe someone should put Abraham up for an AfD and see what happens? Ecoleetage (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only verifiable part of Abraham is about the existence and properties of belief-systems about him, not about the actual subject of Abraham. So, perhaps that means we should rename it to Belief in Abraham and delete extraneous storytelling or present it as mythology-in-universe.   If we don't mess with Abraham, then by that standard all we need to keep the article being proposed for deletion are reliable sources verifying the existence of the belief system. Jwray (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, which is essentially what this "conspiracy" is. By giving it an article, we're helping to promote it. By giving Abraham an article, we're merely repeating what well over 3,000 years of tradition have said, not to mention that half the world subscribes to the three faiths that share reverence for him. So, no comparison. Biruitorul (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But the whole 3000 years of tradition about Abraham is also based on something that someone just made up, and the only verifiable material about Abraham is concerning people's beliefs about him, not the subject itself, which is the same situation as this article and most other religous articles.  You're introducing a double-standard based solely on the age and popularity of the beliefs, not based on WP:V.   Who are we to say what made-up bullshit is a small religion, and what made-up bullshit is a fringe theory?  There is no fine line.  Therefore inclusion should be based on whether we can find reliable sources that verify the existence of people who believe it.  Jwray (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't a case of a fine line, the difference in notability here is more of a gaping chasm. WP:UNDUE actually insists that we discriminate between fringe and non-fringe beliefs. And this theory seems to have no backing from reliable sources. (As self-acknowledged conspiracy websites are, by definition, not reliable sources.) -- B figura (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The question is not whether the theory itself is backed by reliable sources, but whether reliable sources acknowledge the existence of people who believe in the theory and document their beliefs.  If we required that reliable sources backed the theory itself, we would have to delete most religion articles. Jwray (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree completely. I just don't see enough of those sources in the article to establish notability. (Aside from this, they seem to give a relatively passing mention of the theory). -- B figura (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete not a soapbox, etc. --Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.    ITAQALLAH   18:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator... this fringe theory isn't really notable at all.  ITAQALLAH   18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per above discussion. The existence of people who believe this is verifiable; Wikipedia should not be in the business of drawing a fine line between fledgling religions and made-up crackpot theories, because there is no difference.  Either delete them all or keep them all.Jwray (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - usually conspiracy theorists like the above get much attention, and thus become notable. However, in this doesn't seem to be the case here. Delete per nom.Bless sins (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - interesting but incorrect. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - If Wikipedia has a list of conspiracy theories (I can't even be bothered checking), then this article could be reduced to one paragraph and placed there. Otherwise just delete it. --RenniePet (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire and, if anything can be salvaged, make it a paragraph and merge it somewhere else (per Rennie above). Dahn (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, fringe, yes... but more notable than many of the flash-in-the-pan news stories we cover. Of course, it would need good references. gren グレン 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The above comment strikes me as essentially flawed. Doesn't "need good references" presume that good references can actually be found? Is there yet any proof that there are good references? Because, if there isn't, it also means that there is no reason to keep it: not [just] for being fringe, but because wikipedia is not here to record each fantasy. Dahn (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Concerning the opinions of prominent conspiracy theorists (I wish it were an oxymoron), there is an exception to the ban on self-published works under WP:RS when said self-published works are only used as a source for describing the opinions of the author.Jwray (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Good material for a blog, or indeed for a comic book :-) but not for Wikipedia. At least until some bored academic publishes something interesting about this crazy notion, thus providing us with a proper source for an article. - Ev (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Alberto Rivera or week keep (I agree with Jwray that the existence of people who believe this is verifiable). --Dezidor (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2008 (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.