Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] NESARA conspiracy theory

NESARA conspiracy theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article in its current form lacks reliable sources, currently containing none. Seems to fall into line with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, fails WP:V and WP:RS. The only sites presented seem to be those of its creators, no credible news sites, government sites etc. Since noone is covering this "conspiracy theory" / "cult", it seems to also fail WP:N. Over a year and a half ago there was promises made no the previous AfD to find some RS sources, none which have materialized it seems, I think that further shows there just are not any. NuclearZer0 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was previously nominated for deletion in July 2005. The result was keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please also note the deletion proposal for the related article at Articles for deletion/National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per my reasoning above. --NuclearZer0 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this nomination can be closed because the person who nominated it has been in-definetly banned. NuclearUmpf (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) Travb (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
So the nominator actually wants the article kept, he was making a WP:POINT nomination intended to show that certain "usual suspects" would vote delete on any conspiracy theory AfD? --Groggy Dice T | C 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Note to closing admin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act (third nomination) resulted in Delete. --Dual Freq 12:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A group meeting at KFC once a week to discuss it does not make the theory notable. Fundamental Dan 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the concept is absurd, it's better known than the other NESARA article. And Quatloos, which is a WP:RS about other matters, has a forum and FAQ about it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Quatloos may be WP:RS, however their forum contents surely are not. A FAQ possibly if craeted by them and not located on the forum. That still creates an entire article based on 1 source, much of the information in the article is not confirmed through the source as well. --NuclearZer0 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    WP:RS is a property of the source, not its contents. You can't say it violates RS just because you choose not to believe it. Gene Nygaard 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    "...A FAQ possibly if created by them and not located on the forum", in other words, this is the page you're looking for: http://www.quatloos.com/NESARA.htm (not a FAQ, but a full article) - Sednar 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I looked up the webpage on NESARA that is located on Quatloss. It is directly related to the article NESARA however, not related to this conspiracy theory which is, NESARA conspiracy theory. It does not support any of the information located in it, but talks about the "law" that the NESARA article itself discusses, not the conspiracy this article discusses. Perhaps later I will add it to the NESARA article as a source, however it does not support the ideas of any conspiracy nor even discuss a conspiracy. --NuclearZer0 16:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. Of the 12 references, at least 5 are reliable news media or alternative news media (such as the Quatloos article). That article notes the real NESARA concept, but is over 2/3 about the conspiracy theory (including some commentary by the people behind the real proposal). Even if you were to exclude that, it's over half about the conspiracy/hoax. That being clear, I'm forced to conclude this is a bad faith nomination. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    More harrassment, you already stated long ago you assume bad faith in everything I do, and magically found your way here. Now I have treated you with respect, and I ask you do the same. More then half of the soruces are not WP:RS, news doesnt mean some random person reported it as such. The WP:RS source is Tacoma as pointed out below and is a local paper, leaving the issue of an entire article sourced to one place, and it not meeting WP:N, since it doesnt have multiple non trivial sources, just a single source of information. Others can easily review the source if they feel I am wrong. --NuclearZer0 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I hope that people do indeed take the time to review this source, as you are quite obviously wrong. Can you please clarify, did you just read the first sentence of this article or the whole thing? Did you read the second paragraph which begins "Scam artists often latch on to something that sounds good to relieve suckers of money...", or the third paragraph which begins "The NESARA proposal is currently being used in just this sort of a scam...", or the fourth which begins "The scam artists pitching the NESARA scam claim that the 'True NESARA Law' was already adopted by Congress in 2001, but that Congress has been keeping it a secret all this time..."? This article is about the hoax and further substantiates notability. - Sednar 03:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The conspiracy theory was covered in a series of articles in a mainstream newspaper, the Tacoma News Tribune. The articles [1] are linked from this article and have been linked from this article since it was created in 2005. --Metropolitan90 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I reviewed the articles and it seems the sole source is a single local paper in Tacoma. Still fails WP:RS and WP:N. Are there more sources, perhaps from more then a local paper? CNN, New York Times? BBC? Something that shows more then a single neighborhood covered this, or perhaps made it up. --NuclearZer0 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Clearly erroneous statement; Quatloos is a secondary source on the issue, which seems as reliable as many. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Is Quatloss not using the Tacoma paper as its source? I am being generous in all honesty since much of the links its using to make its case are blogs and non reliable sources, bringing into question what its reporting on. However since it mainly uses Tacoma, and it seems to be the only reliable source in the group, it seems its still just a local issue and fascination. Apparently I am not the only one that feels that way, your friend and someone you commonly agree with Tom, Morton etc all seem to feel you are wrong, anyway it seems concensus is speaking. --NuclearZer0 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to NESARA anything verifiable should be put in the NESARA article. Little is verifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Hipocite above, and/or maybe to the NWO conspiracy theory page. Tom Harrison Talk 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Delete - on second thought, little is useable elsewhere, and it is not really a likely search term. Tom Harrison Talk 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Funny, I was thinking of AfDing this yesterday. I did a Lexis/Nexis search and found literally nothing other than a letter to the editor in a CO paper and an announcement of a screening of a film about it. I did find that Nesara means "rising sun" in the Kannada language. This is an internet meme, nothing more. Not notable. GabrielF 20:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Hipocite above Keep since NESARA now redirects to this article. Travb (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above users. Notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but should be trimmed down and included as a subdivision of the main NESARA article. PubliusFL 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Now keep as the other article has been deleted. Effectively the main NESARA article must now be merged into this one. PubliusFL 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources for this as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see what people are complaining about here - we have a documentary and a series of reputable newspaper articles. And the subject seems notable enough - "nesara" and "conspiracy" gets you over 30K ghits. I would not be opposed to merging in the NESARA article; NESARA itself doesn't seem very notable without the conspiracy theorists surrounding it. And I vote for keeping NESARA suppressed - 14% sales tax - ouch! --Brianyoumans 04:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • NESARA conspiracy - Results 1 - 10 of about 30,700 for nesara conspiracy. (0.17 seconds)
  • Super cows - Results 1 - 10 of about 1,330,000 for super cows. (0.17 seconds)
  • Super alien dog cows - Results 1 - 10 of about 1,140,000 for super alien dog cows. (0.84 seconds)
I think your google search was wrong if you did not put "NESARA conspiracy" actually in quotes. "NESARA" "conspiracy" is equal to the searches above. --NuclearZer0 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I paged through the results for "nesara" "conspiracy". There were 472 unique ghits; not fabulous, but better than many articles I've seen kept. And pretty much all of them were actually about this subject. I doubt that very many of the hits for "super alien dog cows" were actually about super alien dog cows! :-) --Brianyoumans 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with No Merge. That there are a bunch of nutcases out there who believe this conspiracy theory is clearly documented, so I think we have our basic notability and references. We should not merge because NESARA documents a proposal ( whose nuttiness is irrelevant ), while this article documents a bunch of people who believe the proposal has been implemented: these are two different things. WMMartin 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)\
    I concur that they're different, but the real proposal has no notability except as it's being using by the conspiracy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - if there is a legitimate version of NESARA but was only generally connected to a single individual who has now died, then unfortunately it's existance on here is doomed to only be used for hoax agendas, so it might as well be deleted until it can be re-created separately from the hoax. Right now it only spreads misinformation. bov 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's notable and fascinating. The sources are The Tacoma Tribune (several articles), the documentary (if you haven't seen the movie you can verify the info in the numerous articles about the movie), quatloos, and the conspirator's sites. How does it lack references? If you see a fact in the article in need of a reference, why don't you put a citation needed tag. Also, this article on the conspiracy theory is more notable then the legal proposal ("legitimate version") because it's more well known and almost all the references you find will refer to the conspiracy theory. Although the exact phrase "nesara conspiracy theory" may not be used in the page, even a cursory glance will verify that. Go ahead and look at the first 10 google matches yourself, 9 of them are speaking about the conspiracy theory and not the legal proposal. I don't see any language in the article being used to promote the hoax or spread misinformation, do you? Where? It seems pretty clearly refering to it as a hoax and discussing it as a hoax. I agree with the user Brianyoumans, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Sednar 09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. The article has WP:RS issues. Although it has some links which point out the “hooey”, i.e. [2] do we need to write an article for every Snopes.com hoax entry that goes against the basis of Wikipedia's hoax guideline? And also, per WP:NOT: That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - and this hoax is non-notable. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment You're citing a single of the sources - just about the shortest one - and saying "althought it has some links...", but anyone who looks at the article and starts looking through the sources - just the ones in reputable sources discussing it as a hoax - will find that there's many, many hours of reading material there justifying its notability. The series of articles in the Tacoma Tribune alone are practically a book's worth of material - Sednar 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a strong anti-conspiracy bent among some editors, a belief that since "no one in their right mind could believe this," these theories could not possibly have enough adherents to make them notable. Thus, even an entry for a plainly notable "conspiracy theorist" like Ted Gunderson can get deleted. So we have comments about "a group meeting at KFC once a week," when the article makes it clear that this is just one group of believers. Unfortunately, even theories as outlandish as this can find believers. The WP:V and WP:RS arguments are unconvincing; the Tacoma "local paper" has been disparaged as a non-notable RS, but it is a RS. Furthermore, this article is not promoting the theory; it clearly presents the case against it. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

*Smerge (and redirect) as suggested and explained by hipocite. gidonb 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete do not merge. NN hoax. gidonb 00:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I admit that the Tacoma Tribune is a reliable source. I believe that this story should only be kept if it meets the requirements of WP:HOAX, i.e. that it fools a lot of people; it needs to be a notable hoax. This fact I believe is not established by the current sources. Arguments that 'Some people claim this..' and 'Some people claim that..' don't seem very convincing. The total documented extent of the hoax (from the Tribune article) is that one person was scammed out of $10,000 (this is so far just a claim filed with the attorney general) and 'possibly much more' (a speculative extrapolation). EdJohnston 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Another concession, another objection put up in its place... But this one doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. You mention one of the articles, and the fact that it only refers to one person who had money taken, but again this is selective reporting on your part (perhaps unintentionally). In the rest of the Tribune's articles on the subject, and in the documentary film on the subject, and in the articles about the documentary film, there are many more people quoted and interviewed, who may not have given money, but who definitely profess a belief in it. The sheer number of blogs and web pages devoted to NESARA (and its supposed imminent announcement and "wonderful changes it will bring about") demonstrates the number of people that believe this. Thousands? I'm not sure, but many hundreds is clearly evident. "'Some people claim this..' and 'Some people claim that..'" are all backed up by the sources provided, including the documentary film about the subject, and it's simply a matter of reading them all to verify this. I've challenged people to put citation needed tags in the proper place on the article where they feel that there are unsourced statements, so far nobody has done this. I've been puzzling over the hostility towards this article, and I think I understand the real issue... I've noticed that a number of people wanting this article deleted have also edited 9/11 articles, and I see that someone put this article in the "9/11 conspiracy theories" template. So I think the real issue, which nobody is bringing up, is that people feel that this is not a prominent 9/11 conspiracy theory. I agree that it is not particularly notable as a 9/11 conspiracy theory (especially when there is only one other theory listed in the template). But I think removing this article from that template, which I would support, is the proper response, and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater by deleting the entire article. - Sednar 03:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. And now that's been done (removing NESARA from the 911ct template). PubliusFL 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if the article is cut down to only the fact supported by the WP:RS references, with no speculation or original research. Otherwise delete. RJASE1 Talk 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep at least one article about the subject. If it contains some criticism that this is a financial cult, the articles' not promoting anyone. I wouldn't call it a 9/11 conspiracy theory, it's a general new age racket.Merkinsmum 00:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The entire topic is absurd, but it provides vital background information on the prosecution of a $20m scammer, and it is referenced by notable sources. The whole thing needs some liberal application of sourcing and some general cleaup, though. "Meets at KFC once a week," seriously--what's next, listing the phone number in case you want to call ahead and order a basket of wings? Jouster 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears that the general consensus is keep - Sednar 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • So.. does anyone disagree that the rough consensus is keep? Admin, please remove the deletion template from the article. - Sednar 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Looks to me like the best description is "no consensus," which means the article should be kept. The voting has been pretty balanced. PubliusFL 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Enough sources and notability to warrant inclusion. Christopher Connor 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. For the following reason - NESARA may have started out as a minor aspect of a larger Confidence Scheme but through the tireless promotion of the concept by Dove of Oneness and others who truly believe in it, it's started to pop up in the writings of other major conspiracy theorists. You'll see talk of NESARA in with David Icke, The New World Order, The Trilateral Commission, and yes, 9/11. NESARA seems to "feel" right to folks looking for another reason to balme 9/11 on anyone but the Hamburg Cell. Yes, the article needs some work, but a basic description of what the term means, how it originated, it's incorpration into the Con and then its extension into New Age conspiracism should stay.LiPollis 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep NESARA as a conspiracy is notable. NESARA as a legislative proposal drafted by Dr. Harvey F. Barnard of the NESARA Institute, a proposal name that was hijacked by the conspiracy theorists and made into something NESARA isn't, is also notable. This information should stay in wikipedia. I am quite amazed at how vociferous some are in deleting information regarding NESARA, the NESARA Institute, and the NESARA conspiracy theory when all three are notable enough for inclusion in the encylopedia alone. inigmatus 13:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Any idea why an admin hasn't removed the deletion template yet? - Sednar 11:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While more academic discussions about the merits of this entry ensue, I found this information helpful and informative to assist in discovering more about NESARA which I learned about in an email. It exposed the potentially damaging aspects of a NESARA hoax, and informed me of the legitimate work of Dr. Barnard, which is a relevant subject of interest. This sort of content is exactly what I come to Wikipedia for. If this type of resource is removed, being deemed too controversial or irrelevant, then Wikipedia's value and relevance to its users errodes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewlingalot (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep Whether or not the Act exists/is notable/is believable, the degree of debate here shows that the conspiracy theory is itself notable. The references may need to be reworked to show the theory rather than the proposed facts, but all in all it seems to be a notable phenomenon for the debate it can trigger. Callix 21:45, 21 March 2007
  • Delete Origional research. Not a new idea.--Sefringle 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If deleted all original research and dubious sources, not much of notability is left. Mukadderat 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I think a statement like "Shaini Goodwin claims that X" is appropriately sourced by providing a link to Shaini Goodwin's own site where she claims X - the article's statement is not "X", it's "Shaini Goodwin claims X". See for example the article on Scientology, where statements about claims of Scientology are sourced by the Scientology site where they make these claims. I think this is what you mean by dubious sources - but if you're talking about Quatloos and the Tacoma Tribune, I think this has already been resolved above. As for original research, can you provide some examples? - Sednar 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. i came here for information, but it looks more like a smear campaign. having "conspiracy theory" in the title instead of a sub-section is completely biased, and this article could probably use a NEUTRALITY disclaimer. the only good reason to delete it would be to harmonize with the "information supression" that NESARA purports to be facing. to me, the fact that some are actively trying to eliminate the opportunity for others to even consider NESARA is strong evidence for its validity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.198.172 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_NESARA_conspiracy_theory_%28second_nomination%29_a06c.html"