Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Monarch

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 Naconkantari 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Monarch

Project Monarch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-20 09:24Z

• Delete Concerns about WP:RS. A load of allegations, nothing solid. Tinfoilhatcruft. --Folantin 09:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Folantin. If its existence is open to doubt, then you can almost guarantee that Wikipedia should not have an article on it - here WP:V, WP:RS. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "Project Monarch or Operation Monarch is reputedly a subsection of the Central Intelligence Agency's mind control research" (emphasis mine). Well, we can't write an article about rumours, can we? MER-C 11:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, and watch. Moreschi's reasoning is understandable, but it's actually incorrect. Wikipedia has, and should have, articles on many things whose existence is open to doubt, or has even been completely disproven: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the Hitler Diaries; the Cottingley Fairies... This article should not be kept because any of the bizarre and outlandish claims made about Project Monarch are believable; far from it. It should be kept because those bizarre and outlandish claims have received a measure of attention in and of themselves. In fact, since probably the most exposure the Project Monarch 'theories' got was with the publication of Brice Taylor's "Thanks For The Memories ... The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope's and Henry Kissinger's Mind-Controlled Slave" and the ensuing media attention, the article really needs to be revised to include information about Taylor's book. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Fine. But look. At the moment this article contains no reliable sources and notability is not asserted, much less backed up by more reliable sources. Under those circumstances, it should go. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Pretty major conspiracy theory. A need for improvement is not an argument for deletion. Ford MF 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tinfoilhatcruft - I like that. How do we measure the significance of a conspiracy theory? Obviously Kennedy conspiracy theorys need articles in the context of the main article but this? .... I think not. Spartaz 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• The CIA is good, The CIA is great, I say DELETE as of this date. Oh, where was I. Anyway, there really is not significant material about this conspiracy theory presented to write a decent NPOV article on it, and I would like to see that the conspiracy theory was notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danntm (talk • contribs).
• Do Not Delete There is ample evidence out there that this is no conspiracy theory. It is Conspiracy Fact. Read The Franklin Coverup, Trance-Formation of America, The Montauk Project books. It should not be deleted and/or censored from this site. Why are the Wikipedia pages dealing with Government Conspiracy's being negatively modified and /or deleted from this site. Someone is going to great lengths to conceal this information. LEAVE IT ALONE!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.177.202 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
  • I'm sorry, but your claims are incorrect. You'll notice that there has never been any attempt to delete the article on Project MKULTRA from Wikipedia. This is because there is actual evidence indicating the existence of Project MKULTRA. Contrary to your claim that there is "ample evidence" on there really being a Project Monarch, all we have ever gotten on the subject are ample claims. Merely repeating and amplifying the same claims over and over does not make them "evidence" instead of claims. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This afd is about the rumors of the project rather than the project it seems. The project probably wouldn't be able to meet WP:V due to its nature. Just H 01:15, 23 December 2006 (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.