Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy realist

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:48Z

[edit] Conspiracy realist

Conspiracy realist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

As another editor pointed out on the talk page to this article, the article itself is a POV violation, granting credit to those named (on uncertain grounds) as "conspiracy realists," and leaving all those unnamed to be regarded as supporting so-called "baseless theories." The article is sourced by a single link to a message board. Without reliable, third-party sources to document the existence of "conspiracy realists," this article should be deleted. janejellyroll 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. POV fork of conspiracy theory, no reference in a reliable source, neolism, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork, no reliable sources, neologism. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. No reliable sources, just an arbitrary distinction for POV purposes. If there are documented uses of "conspiracy realist" in credible sources, it can possibly be mentioned in Conspiracy theory. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reliance on dubious sources, not verifiable. PlusWikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and the official cabal decree, WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.. Propagandists! Realspeak! Orwellian!  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 03:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FORK, WP:RS, WP:NEO, and possibly even WP:NOT#DICT. The term does have some use (see [1] and [2]), but they are mostly on message boards, which do not meet WP:RS. Oh, and apparently, it's also a myspace account name. Finally, a personal comment: to distinguish between a "theorist" and a "realist" in the way this article has done implies a complete lack of understanding as to what a theory really is (the "common usage" of the term is horribly wrong; crazy notions are just that--crazy notions--they are not theories). OK, I'm done. -- Black Falcon 03:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism--Mmx1 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Double-plus ungood delete - POV fork, others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unreferenced neologism, POV, but a very good laugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Please. --Tbeatty 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Yours, Famspear 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork and other dubious achievements. Realkyhick 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. --Hyperbole 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I personally prefer the term "Conspiracy Idiot" - at least the theorists get their results through sheer easy ignorance! --Action Jackson IV 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--MONGO 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doczilla 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated and per Black Falcon. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions.
• Delete per above GabrielF 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a soapbox Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN and is not verifiable --rogerd 14:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Article creator has been blocked for 3RR repeatedly re-adding pointers to this and the related category to an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Aude (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to "List of ridiculous terms coined by conspiracy theorists to present their views in a more favorable light". On second thought, delete per the Knights Templar (oops, I've said too much). MastCell 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just over 1000 Google hits, but most appear to be people's self descriptions, as a distinction from "conspiracy theorists." As a neologism, it does not appear to be used in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for terms made up while wearing a tinfoil hat one day. Inkpaduta 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete. There are several violations here, already discussed, but I will add another: the term "conspiracy realist" is an oxymoron. If you look up "oxymoron" in the dictionary, Mr. Webster probably used "conspiracy realist" as an example. Dino 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, neologism and no reliable sources. --Dual Freq 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Inkpaduta said what I wanted to say best. ( I now return to my secret lair where I will receive a colossal fee from our secret masters for stifling this discussion. ) ( To the literal minded: the previous sentence was a joke. ) WMMartin 17:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:34, 13 February 2007 (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.