User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard

This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conspiracy theories - we'll see if it works. GabrielF 15:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess not. I miss this page. Morton Devonshire^Yo 06:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction, purpose and inclusion criteria

This page is a noticeboard for editors interested in conspiracy-related AfDs. It began life as a tool to help users easily track the flood of 9/11 conspiracy theory AfDs that started around the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These AfDs primarily targetted articles on subjects with little or no notability, which violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V and which were created (in my opinion) for the purpose of promoting people, ideas, and books rather than for furthering wikipedia's mission. A great many wikipedians agreed with this assessment and as a result approx. 44 articles were deleted and approx. 8 AfDs did not reach a consensus. Because there is significant interest in tracking AfDs related to other conspiracy theories, I have broadened the page and renamed it GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Below I am formally defining the scope of the page based on its past usage and discussion at talk.

I've decided to take more control over this page. From now on, I'm going to restrict adding new entries to this page to myself. If you want an AfD to be listed here, drop a note on my talk page. I will only list articles and other pages that are (a) related to conspiracy theories (as defined by the first paragraph of Conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorists and (b) nominated on a policy basis (e.g. notability, original research, etc.). I will list these AfDs without comment. I, and only I, will post links to discussions that are relevant to users interested in AfDs and conspiracy theory articles. I intend to use this section to raise awareness of relevant policy discussions, not to influence policy or article content.

Finally, just because an AfD is listed here doesn't mean that I support it. Do not interpret an AfDs listing here as a sign that I endorse it.

Current XfDs:

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 redirect to Moon landing conspiracy theories#Hoax claims and rebuttals. Consensus not to keep this article. Redirecting instead of deleting is necessary to provide attribution for the merger. Sandstein 13:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has had issues related to POV, lack of reliable sources, use of original research, and a lack of wikipedia-like style for at least a decade. These issues have not been fixed. All useful and wikipedia-relevant content has already been merged into Moon landing conspiracy theories. The fact that this article exists at all on wikipedia reduces the overall reputation of the wiki. All relevant photographs already exist on the other page, all relevant citations already exist there, etc.

I went ahead and merged all remaining wiki-appropriate material into Moon landing conspiracy theories#Hoax claims and rebuttals. Every unique piece of information that remains is either WP:OR or WP:POV in this editor's opinion.

The existence of this article as a unique page sidelines it and fosters more and more conspiratorial discussion and POV and less and less verifiability, reliable-source usage, and wiki-appropriate style. The former AfD was kept mainly because of POV-editors (many of whom have now been banned) and issues with article length in the aforementioned merged article. Those issues have largely been dealt with in the intervening years.

Because the merge already basically happened and this independent article is just a duplication of the other information with additional POV and OR, I think it's in a weird limbo in that regard. A new AfD would be more prudent. I'm very happy to point to specific passages in this article that meet OR or POV criteria if requested.

The main issue as I see it is that this article reads as exactly what it has been for over a decade: two different POVs edit-warring over small tiny discrepancies. Every time a new conspiracy theory is invented about the moon landing, it shows up on this page, sans reliable sources or evidence of notability. This sort of thing belongs on a forum deep in the darkweb, not here on the wiki.Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete - along with Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings and any other forks that may exist. We should not be giving this much coverage to WP:FRINGE therories. The main Moon landing conspiracy theories article should cover the entire topic and should not go into excessive detail by presenting and debunking every piece of "evidence". –dlthewave ☎ 20:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Agree for the most part, but I actually think Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings serves a vital public service. Third-party evidence of the landings is perhaps the best way to convince fringe theorists of the fringe nature of their ideas. Placing it all on one page as a list is also a great use of an encyclopedic format. The third-party article also doesn't suffer from many of the POV and RS and OR issues that the AfD'd article is rampant with. As Reagan later said to Gorbachev, "доверяй, но проверяй." Trust but verify. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The useful sourced content should be merged into Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings and Moon landing conspiracy theories, as applicable. Brandmeister^talk 21:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Merge/Delete - I agree with the notion that having multiple articles covering essentially the same general topic need to be put together. Issues of reliable sources and original research should instead be dealt with on the talk page as ordinary talk page discussion, although I should note there are published reliable sources which could cover at least some of those issues on the proposed page can be found with a little bit of effort from noted astrophysicists and others who have done both "popular" and scholarly reviews of these topics as well. This page does not need to be in a separate article. ---Robert Horning (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment One reason that this was split off is that Wikipedia:Article size suggest that an article be no larger than about 50-60KB. This one is now 299KB. But perhaps those guidelines are out of date. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

To me, it just seems that 50-60KB is an antiquated limit. As Facebook stretches internet across the globe via satellite, and Google weaves Fiber into every home in 20+ municipalities, who really has a dial-up connection anymore? That was the original reasoning for limits like these. Further, the article size page itself quotes the existence of 2,000+ articles with sizes above 200KB. It stands to reason that an article such as Moon landing conspiracy theories with a wealth of images is a perfect exemption to an informal rule like this. Especially when one considers the collateral damage of a separate article -- less attention from editors, repetition of so much information, and a plethora of editorial issues. Plus, as I say above, the other articles already duplicate all the wiki-appropriate content! There really isn't any important detail left to be merged in, not that I could see. The AfD'd article just expounds in more detail about minute tiny conspiracy theories with non-notable back-and-forth argumentation and quite a bit of repetition. After a careful read, I couldn't find any more un-merged info than I and other editor's had already prudently merged into the main article, where that controversial content will get the attention it deserves. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 04:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that one of the reasons at the time was that some browsers couldn't handle > 64KB. Surely that isn't an issue now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete per excellent nom. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Deletion will just be the reversion of an ill-advised split. SpinningSpark 15:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Still a needless WP:FORK of WP:FRINGE theories. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Do you want to end the discussion because of SNOWBALL? The reasons for deletion are correct. We did a lot of work on this article, when conspiracy buffs would put in something they saw or heard somewhere and we would do a lot of work to track down photos which show what they were talking about, etc. But I don't think this article has a snowball's chance of surviving. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Those photographs will still survive and live on in the other articles mentioned! They serve a vital public service and I think Moon landing conspiracy theories in particular serves a vital public service. What a great article. Are there any photographs in particular that you think are worth keeping that also haven't been merged into that article? Photographs that will be orphaned by this? --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all of the information is there *I haven't checked). For instance, one of the claims of fake photos is that the reticules aren't centered on the famous photo of Buzz Aldrin on the Moon. It counters that by showing the original, unedited photo. Those photos are both in the other article, but I don't know if all of the claims, etc, are in there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Moon landing conspiracy theories#Hoax claims and rebuttals. That effectively ends us up where a selective merge would have, which is what has happened here for all practical purposes. In any case, as a long-standing article the final state should not be a redlink. VQuakr (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Redirect Originally this article served to contain arguments from moon hoax proponents that were getting out of control. But it looks like the main article is containing the content well. If someone can make sure that the article doesn't contain anything that is missing from Moon landing conspiracy theories then a redirect ought to be fine. Algr (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. Relevant content has already been merged and I suspect the title of this article is searchable on pageviews because it appears in a 'parent' article. Mramoeba (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Redirect – The article still contains a wider range of interesting material than what was merged so far. On first reading, it does not sound like giving much credence to fringe theories, rather it provides a sound rebuttal of every claim. Future editors could mine the history of this article to improve the main conspiracy page, any time claims are re-introduced there. Finally, article history by itself can be viewed as a historical perspective about the evolution of Moon landing conspiracy theories, their defense, rebuttal, and public perception. For the sake of historians, this is worth preserving in the Wikipedian record. — JFG ^talk 11:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment – I get the feeling that most users who voted "Delete" would also be comfortable with a Redirect. Is that the case? This would also allow us to slowly ensure that all relevant content from this article is indeed used on the main one, and wouldn't directly orphan any left behind images right away. To me, it sounds like a great compromise.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I would not support a redirect. I voted delete for a reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete -- Unfortunately we need to have articles on conspiracy theories (a variety of fake news), but one per theory is ample. We therefore do not need this. No objection to a merger or redirect, but we need to avoid overnburdening the target with excess detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2018 (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.

Misc. Discussions of interest

Closed discussions

Deleted

Merged

No Consensus

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_3#Template:911tm (19 deletes vs 7 keeps)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Terror Timeline (16 deletes vs 10 keeps)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/11:_Press_for_Truth (19 deletes vs 22 keeps)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site (second nomination) (21 keeps vs 21 deletes)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (I'm not even going to try to count that mess; see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Closing_rationales for closing admin's rationale)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Webster_G._Tarpley (26 deletes vs 9 keeps)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The War on Freedom - (21 deletes vs 13 keeps)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination) - (16 keeps vs 16 deletes)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The CIA and September 11 (book)(2nd) - (19 keep - 7 delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Pearl Harbor - (12 keep - 8 delete)

Kept

Deletion Review

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_25#9-11: The Road to Tyranny -- deletion endorsed
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006 October 22#Andy Stephenson -- deletion endorsed
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October_29#Walter Andrew Stephenson -- deletion endorsed
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_4#Terrorstorm - deletion endorsed - see [1] GabrielF 22:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Paul Thompson - Merge/redirect endorsed