Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 9, 2005 12:44 (UTC)

[edit] NESARA conspiracy theory

Seems to be a lot of nonsense Groeck 1 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

seems like you didn't take the time to investigate it before declaring VfD. Inigmatus
Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs; adding to today's log. --cesarb 1 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)
  • Keep Can you elaborate on what you mean, and especially on why that is grounds for deletion? I don't think you're referring to the "patent nonsense" classification, because it's not gobbledygook, and it's not something I made up. It's a conspiracy theory. The article is about the history and claims of the conspiracy theory. NESARA has more then 50,000 google hits, it has several articles written on it [1] [2], a movie about it [3], and NESARA's main proponent (Shaini Goodwin) frequently goes on the radio to promote it. It needs an encyclopedic entry for people hearing about it or doing research to go to get objective information. I can find nothing in the wikipedia guidelines for deletion that justifies deleting it. If you think I made it up, check my references. -- - sednar (talk · contribs)
  • Keep. Needs some work (don't we all?), but manages to present both sides fairly well, and is an amusing conspiracy theory. --khaosworks July 1, 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need every conspiracy theory to have its own entry. This is a joke anyway; there can't be anyone who actually believes this. But either way, it is not notable; it fits into the deletion category "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" (see WP:DP). There should be an entry for this under "conspiracy theories" or something with links to the website if people want to learn more about it -- I don't see the need for this much information.--csloat 1 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
    • Granted not every conspiracy theory deserves its own article, however, tell me what makes the NESARA conspiracy theory any different than the ones already with their own articles in WP? What criteria do those articles pass that renders them more favorable than the NESARA conspiracy theory? I submit that this article passes all the criteria used for those other articles. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 21:26 (UTC)
"there can't be anyone who actually believes this", but there are. I have met dozens (I am not one myself, far from it). Please, do a little research before you claim that nobody belives this - simply read the articles in the references section of the article, particularly from the Tacoma Tribune. Or at least, I'm sure you can think of historical examples of people who have believed even stranger things (Heaven's gate, Jim Jones). I know of several people who had given hundres of dollars to scammers promoting NESARA, and even a guy with stomach cancer who gave money in lieu of medical treatment (and later died). This is an "amusing conspiracy theory" as noted above, but it's also a proto-religion with deadly serious consequences that people need to know about. But DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, JUST CHECK MY REFERENCES, which you seem to have not done. -- sednar (talk · contribs)
  • Neither google nor snopes substantiates this, so I'd say delete as original research. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 13:58 (UTC)
  • Redirect In retrospect, I would like to ammend my vote to redirect. Dcarrano makes a good point. This is a conspiracy theory about a proposal for legislation. It should be a footnote on the legislation article with citation to the Tribune article and the scams that have been associated with this. However, while the NESARA article needs substantial work, it should primarily refer to the crackpot proposal (which predates the conspiracy theory). -Harmil 1 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
    • non VfD related, but wanting to ask: why or how could the bill be considered a "crackpot idea"? Have you even read it? Perhaps you can discuss why you think it's a crackpot idea with me here: http://www.thewordfiles.com/nesara Inigmatus July 1, 2005 21:36 (UTC)
  • Keep a real conspiracy theory, believed by real dolts, and well worthy of an article ➥the Epopt 1 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
  • Redirect to NESARA, which in turn should be an article about the conspiracy theory, rather than the mess it is now. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)
  • MergeKeep content w NESARA, and perhaps Sherry Shriner, a proponant of these theories. Anyone w any doubts as to the accuracy of all this should read her article, or better yet her websites. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)
  • Keep Though it's almost certainly inaccurate, it does represent a real phenomenon that somebody could conceivably want to research. The term NESARA gets over 60,000 google hits and it is clear that significat numbers of people not only believe in it but also politically organize around it. As such, whether or not the beliefs of adherents are correct is not material. What is important is whether or not this is a legitimate topic. I believe it is. The page should be watched, though, to ensure NPOV and that it is accurately contextualized. Tobycat 1 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)
  • Delete insufficiently notable to have a whole article rather than a brief mention in passing. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)
  • Keep This information is useful to the public regarding one of the largest and wide-spread internet hoaxes. I find there to be an unreasonable vendetta against these articles, and if I wasn't so busy gnoming articles, I'd think some of these VfDs are mere trolling incidents. The popularity of this NESARA conspiracy theory should be enough to warrant its own article, and is one of the top ranked search items for information about it from Google, indicating several internet sites are linking to it for reference. The public should be informed of this hoax, and likewise also informed of the legitimate NESARA bill. I also appeal to the originators of these VfDs to end the trolling. --Inigmatus July 1, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
    • Trolling accusations are inappropriate; assume good faith. The thing is that I don't believe there is any "legitimate" NESARA bill. Sure, a few private citizens in a country of 250 million people might support such a bill, but that doesn't make it a bill "under consideration by Congress." Therefore, there should only be one article, discussing the conspiracy theory surrounding this phantom bill, and it should be under the NESARA label. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
      • The reason it was split was to address wordiness and other NPOV issues with NESARA which still needs some work. NESARA conspiracy theory could use some cleanup, but I think it should be kept because of the fact that the hoax is more popular than the legitimate bill itself, and if there are other wiki articles solely for other famous hoaxes, then this article is definately one that should be included in such a category of similar articles, and not deleted. In all VfD discussions I usually defer to article precedent over deletion rules. If related articles exist for the same reasons the target article exists, then I believe the targeted article should be allowed to stay as well. In short: are there any other nondisputed wiki articles for other famous hoaxes? If so, then I think we have the precedent we need for making a decision on this VfD. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 21:19 (UTC)
        • Agree with much of your logic, but just as e.g. I would place the Hitler Diaries hoax under the heading Hitler Diaries rather than Hitler Diaries hoax, I would place the NESARA conspiracy theory under the heading NESARA, rather than under NESARA conspiracy theory. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)
          • I understand your reasoning too. I think what the author of this article did for the title was to formulate something similar to other conspiracy theory articles listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conspiracy_theories Notably, you have a SARS conspiracy theory and a seperate SARS article. The same is true for AIDS conspiracy theories vs AIDS, Nick Berg vs Nick Berg conspiracy theories. The original subject in these examples are shown as seperate articles, then you have a seperate article dealing with the popular conspiracy theory regarding it (if there is one). I think this was the author's intent for NESARA conspiracy theory. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 22:41 (UTC)
            • Understood, but SARS, AIDS and Nick Berg are things that would deserve articles of their own even if there were no conspiracy theory relating to them. However, no one really cares about the content of the Hitler Diaries -- they are notable only as a hoax -- and I think NESARA is in the same boat. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)
  • This article is a split of NESARA that was performed by 67.168.88.65 (talk · contribs) during that article's VFD discussion, apparently intended to address the concerns brought up in that discussion. (See this explanation and this explanation by that user.) For GFDL reasons, if for no other, its deletion should be brought under the umbrella of that VFD discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-01 19:23:01 (UTC)
  • Keep -- more notable conspiracy theory than you'd think. In any case Rick Ross thinks it's important enough for his page. 141.154.205.115 2 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)
  • Delete Also answering allegations above. I did take time to investigate it. It is a conspiracy theory. As such, it should be deleted, and not be given more than a link to Conspiracy theory. I agree with the earlier comment - wikipedia does not need a separate entry for each conspiracy theory. Providing links to the individual theories ought to be enough. Groeck 2 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
    • Do you know how popular this hoax is compared to other wiki articles about particular hoaxes? I'm still not certain how this article violates any Wikipedia rules to merit deletion. I think you still have yet to present a case.Inigmatus July 4, 2005 03:36 (UTC)
      • On what basis can you call this hoax "popular"? Number of google hits is not telling us much, esp since most of those point to nesara sites or to the wikipedia entry. I certainly never heard of NESARA before seeing these entries in wikipedia. A hoax this big must be mentioned in snopes, the premier internet hoax-busting site, no? Well, no, apparently. Must be a ton of newspaper articles on it though, right? Ummm, no. Looking on Lexis/Nexis, searching for all available dates through major papers, there is exactly one article about NESARA and it is a letter to the editor from some guy in Denver in 2001. Meanwhile, a search for the phrase "good times virus" turns up 60 hits, mostly actual articles, telling me that was a far more significant internet hoax. The entry for goodtimes virus in wikipedia is short and to the point, unlike these articles. Again, it's just not notable enough to merit its own entry; this should be a sentence or two under conspiracy theories and the other NESARA maybe a sentence under crackpot economic theories but neither of these are notable enough to merit encyclopedic attention, at least not to this extent. Just my opinion.... --csloat 5 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
    • Reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi: An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody will see it. The case is made above: completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Groeck 4 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)
      • Groeck, what have you against these articles? I've never seen anyone so gung-ho for removing a wiki article. You still have not presented a valid Wikipedia Deletion Guideline case for even this article's deletion, and we're at day 5 of this VfD already.Inigmatus July 5, 2005 19:15 (UTC)
        • Actually, Inigmatus, notability is required for a wikipedia entry, and the WP:DP page even has a category "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" which has been referred to in this discussion already. This is not an issue of the entry violating some rule; it is simply not notable enough.--csloat 5 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
  • The dominant website cited as a source for this conspiracy theory is getting an alexa ranking of greater than 360,000. The other sources were either worse or didn't discuss it as a conspiracy theory. For something alleging to be an internet-based conspiracy theory, that is a very poor showing. I can find no evidence that this is a noteworthy conspiracy theory. Any article will be inherently unverifiable. Delete. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)
    • Comment on notability: The News Tribune, a newspaper in Tacoma, Washington, did a large multi-story exposé on NESARA [5], (which is very interesting reading in and of itself). The news tribune website ranks 24,687 on alexa [6]. As a newspaper, it has a weekend circulation of 144,000 [7] (the first part of the exposé was published on the weekend). Quatloos.com has an alexa rating of 63,753 [8] and has several pages debunking NESARA. NESARA has been discussed on radio on the Jeff Rense program. NESARA people often hold public protests and show up at other groups' protests, (see [9] for an image of a NESARA protester standing next to Ralph Nader, also [10] and that entire page for more), have carried out expensive truck billboard campaigns in Washington DC ([11] for images, and see "The Trucks" [12] for more detail and verification that they're not photoshopped images). They also hold protests outside the world court in The Netherlands (see [13] for the images of these protests - yes, the site is crazy, I'm posting the link for the images). They frequently send postcards to the world court, and to members of congress - one congressman, John Shimkus, had to point out in his newsletter to constituents that it was a scam [14]. Although Snopes.com doesn't have a NESARA page, other sites about urban legends do [15] [16]. Journalist John Gorenfeld (who has previously been published on wired.com and salon.com) recently put an article on his webpage about NESARA called "The Clinton Cargo Cult". [17]. I believe this addresses your criticism of unverifiability (discuss). I would not call this the biggest hoax in internet history, but I think it is more widespread then most in the pro-delete camp would expect. It's also notable for the absurdity of its claims, and further for the astounding fact that some people believe it. I think that some of the hostility towards this article is due to the fact that some people might be thinking I'm trying to promote the scam - far from it. I think this is a dangerous scam that has cost many people a lot of money. Now, "notability" is subjective to some degree, but consider what other articles are considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. We have an article on The flora in the fictional Star Wars Universe, an article on The Sound Track to Death Wish II, and an article on a 19th century Parisian entertainer who farted songs on stage. I think there is a place in wikipedia for the NESARA scam. - sednar (talk · contribs)
    • CommentWell said sednar. Now I wonder if the pro-delete camp will also get a clue of the obvious need for making people aware of the legitimate NESARA bill wherever the NESARA hoax is being discussed. Dr. Barnard commented to me last month that the hardest part of pushing for Congressional sponsorship is the popularity of the hoax, as all members of Congress approached, he said, refuse to discuss NESARA because they "get so many postcards about it" - referring of course to the NESARA conspiracy supporting Take Action Teams that advocate its duped members to send postcards to everyone in government to "announce NESARA now!" Can't the pro-delete camp see the need to set the record straight - and what better place to do so than wikipedia, the free (and popular) encyclopedia?Inigmatus July 6, 2005 04:52 (UTC)
      • LOL... Dr. Barnard told you this last month after he died two months ago?--csloat 6 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)
        • It's July already?...it still feels like June... Inigmatus July 6, 2005 14:43 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a valuable and very accurate account of a con which has been going on for a number of years now. It is valuable as one of the few complete accounts on the Internet of this con, for those interested in cults and conspiracy theories and for those who have been or could be taken in by the con. An excellent resource, all in all. Jmc29
  • I'd like to try to nudge this towards consensus if possible, as the discussion seems to have slowed down. Though it leans in favor of keep (8 to 5, with 2 redirect suggestions), I don't see a satisfying consensus being reached anytime soon. On the NESARA deletion discussion, the resolution to that discussion involved re-editing the page to reduce it to a small portion of its original size. I think it was appropriate for that article, because before that the NESARA article was heavily POV, and reproduced every little point of the NESARA proposal. Someone suggested doing the same to this article, but I don't think the same solution is appropriate here. For one thing, the NESARA conspiracy theory article is not POV, is not arguing any case, and is not promoting anything (agree?). So it is not burdened with the redundant, promotional material that the NESARA article was, and so there is really nothing to reduce (if you disagree, please make the edits). Rather, the main argument that has been levied against this article is the claim that it is simply not notable enough for inclusion. If that is the consensus that ends up being reached, then I'd say delete it altogether rather then keep a stub in an attempt at placation. But in this discussion I've argued that it is notable, and many agree with me. I don't claim that it is of overwhelmingly urgent importance, just that it is important enough to include, and is certainly not a completely idiosyncratic non-topic. I've provided evidence of that and answered claims regarding notability and verifiability, and most of my points have not been refuted. I think that unfortunately, the claim made earlier that this is "one of the largest and wide-spread internet hoaxes" (not made by me), ended up becoming a straw man argument that was easily torn down. I'd like to reframe the discussion and try to reach a consensus that this conspiracy theory, while not the biggest of all time, is notable enough for inclusion as its own article, of roughly the length that it is now. - sednar (talk · contribs)
  • Keep. Notable enough for Wikipedia. --WikiFan04ß 15:31, 7 Jul 2005 (CDT)
  • Consensus Achieved? 24 hours later later, one comment in favor of keeping, none against, and the comments before that mixed but generally in favor of keeping. It seems like everyone felt that they have made their case ad nauseum (including me), and consensus is in favor of KEEP.
  • Consensus Achieved This article is Keep. Admins, please remove VfD.Inigmatus July 8, 2005 15:51 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.