Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy assassination theories

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 of the debate was keep. The consensus is clear here, so I'm following Stevevertigo's suggestion and closing this early.--Sean|Black 19:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kennedy assassination theories

This page simply offers a target for vandals and kooks to engage in character assassination Fred Bauder 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep: While I agree with the nom.'s objections; I think we would be best served to keep the article, for without it there would be greater emphasis on inserting these things into other articles. Besides I just spent over an hour rebutting this thing, just to have it deleted. That's just bad mojo. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. George W. Bush gets vandalized a lot. Want to AfD that? CanadianCaesar 22:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - hardly a good reason to delete a page. Both JFK and his assassination are reasonably encyclopedic topics about one of the more prominent politicians in the last century and how he died. Stemming from that are the various theories about how it came about, and its not original research to point out what the various points of view are. Because the 'official version' does not have very broad support, NPOV requires that the various other theories be explained, albeit in a general and condensed way. Are these theories "conspiratorial" theories? Of course, and this should be explained, albeit in a way which does not rely on a pejorative interpretation of the term "conspiracy." I do agree however that 'vandals and kooks' would feel more at home on some Wikipedia fork. ;) -Ste|vertigo 22:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopedic. Durova 22:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep At times "alternative" theories have seemed reasonable. They are also a cultural phenomonon worth documenting. Rich Farmbrough 22:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The Kennedy assassination has one of the largest set of "alternate theories" of any major case, and it's definitely encyclopedic to document them. Certainly no less encyclopedic than, say, 9/11 conspiracy theories, which nobody has listed for deletion. --Delirium 23:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, with a side-order of "ew, this sucks" - it's arguably an encyclopaedic topic, but this version of the article is batshit and is arguably not in any way an improvement on a blank edit box. It will need some SERIOUS NPOVing and absolutely hard-arsed referencing to make a good article on this topic at this title. If we know any non-insane JFK assassination experts on the wiki, please get them on the case - if they can at least reasonably commit to making it a good article and keeping the nutters out, that'll make it worth not shooting in disgust - David Gerard 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep The article itself is encyclopaedic, but (almost) everything in the article which is not sourced should be removed. Garion96 (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with User:David Gerard, and urge people voting keep to read the article carefully. This is pretty damn awful and ought to be replaced with a one paragraph stub, and then built up, insisting on references for new stuf. No or little content here is reusable. I'm not sure this justifies deleting it from the page history, so I'm not voting, but I'd be interested to see if anyone actually thinks this is good content, rather than that we need an article here. Morwen - Talk 00:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There was a time in the mid-1970s when the United States congress passed a resolution calling the Warren Commission inaccurate. That was done on the basis of evidence that has since been disproven, yet the subject is far too well known to ignore. Durova 00:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep and yes I have read the article. Needs clean up, so if some wants to be bold they're welcome to it. Otherwise the subject matter is extremely notable from both an historical and a pop culture perspective. 23skidoo 00:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable topic. Unbehagen 00:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Noteworthy topic. And deleting it would probably be deemed part of the conspiracy. Jtmichcock 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not anywhere near a good reason to delete an article. We can write a good article about this subject, and it it certainly worthy of having one written about it. If the existing article sucks, the answer is to edit it. Bryan 02:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep But completely revamp the page. The Kennedy assassination has resulted in the "official" theory of who killed Kennedy and why. The problem is that very few people believe the "official" theory. There are highly committed people on both sides of the issue of "lone gunman" versus "multiple gunman" causing the tone of the discussion to become highly agitated.

But, this should be a factor for keeping the coverage expansive--not limiting it.The two alternative theories seem to be:

1) The "official" assassin, Oswald, was working with one or more other persons; or

2) The "official" assassin was framed by others who actually assassinated Kennedy.

One way of handling this is to merely document the fundamental flaws that plague the "official" theory, and the historical reasons those in control of the investigation claimed it was necessary that the public be convinced that Oswald committed the crime and did so alone.

Another way is to document the the most accepted alternative theories to the :official" theory.

Right now the article is a mess.

RPJ 07:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep and cleanup this significant topic. Why isn't Seigenthaler mentioned anywhere in the article? :) Gazpacho 09:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Many books and films on the subject. (Gazpcho: or at least an external link to [1] :)
• Keep and improve, the topic is important. --Petros471 15:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Un-AFD

I am un-AFD'ing this under the snowball's chance clause. Current voting (after Petros471) is 13 keep, 3 neutral, with 0 deletes. -Ste|vertigo 18:47, 17 December 2005 (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.