Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Plot

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 (2 deletes vs 5 keeps from long-time users) Renata3 08:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Business Plot

This article appears to be a complete creation using conspiracy theory sources and a doctored photograph of a non-existent event. References in the article to alleged events are sourced to someone's personal (or group) web page. - Ted Wilkes 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Madman 14:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: please specify in what way the photo is "doctored". Its source is on a .gov site [1] and I don't see any obvious "doctoring" except for contrast enhancement. The caption is copied from the source site as well.Trapolator 15:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is backed with more than enough references. In the future, before you propose an article for deletion, spend some time on the talk page. All I see you've placed a single dispute notice. --Cigor 16:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Ted Wilkes has never contributed a single word to the Business Plot until yesterday, when he posted his comments on the article page itself (not on the talk page)[2], and deleted a reference, calling it "pure crap" with no evidence for his accusations[3]. He also deleted the entire criticism section of DuPont article which mentions this plot.

The accusation that the photo is a fabrication is baseless. If Mr. Wilkes would have bothered spending his time clicking the image, instead of posting his comments on the article page[4] and making accusations, he would have read this: "This image comes from the National Archives and Records Administration..." Click here to see. Mr. Wilkes wants wikipedians to believe he knows something that the National Archives and Records Administration doesn't! Thank you Trapolator for pointing out the US government archives site which has this photo.[5]

In fact all of Ted Wilkes accusations are baseless. The true "non-existent event" is not the Business Plot which has been exhastively referenced with 15 footnotes covering several sources, including the Congressional committee of the McCormack-Dickstein Committee.

The REAL "non-existent event" is Ted Wilkes accusations. I have no patience for ideological Don Quixotes who use wikipedia policy to push their own POV.

In addition, madman, who voted for deletion above, may be a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes. madman has no contributions on wikipedia[6], except to vote on deleting Business Plot. Travb 20:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This article needs lots of work, but its status as a significant subject should not be in doubt. Gazpacho 20:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No apparent grounds for deletion as per above. The Business Plot reference also needs to be restored to the DuPont Corporation page, where Ted Wilkes deleted the entire criticism section. Bwithh 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What is this Ted Wilkes doing? Join the discussion man, instead of trying to kill it in such an arrogant way - that is, if you have arguments. pomos
• Keep If need be, mention its disputed state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.211.226 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Needs work, but still worth holding onto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Hardly worthy of delection, and I don't know what Ted Wilkes was thinking. May need some cleanup to indicate that the existence of the Plot is disputed, but if we have an article on Majestic 12, we can have an article on this. --Technogeek 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This dispute is unwarranted and contrived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.127.62 (talk • contribs)
• Comment Please sign your posts Travb 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rather then deleting the page, please provide a second POV. If it happened or if it is a hoax, either way it deserves a page. A 22:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The debate here deserves a hearing. If such discussion is flagged as qwestionable, readers will be able to check these references for themselves. Deleting this page is a kind of censorship that this community should be wary of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheist (talk • contribs)
• Comment Please sign your posts Travb 19:38, 25 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.