Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy and subpages

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 delete along with all subpages, by wide margin. FCYTravis 06:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy

It was recently brought to my attention at WP:AN that these pages promote and always will promote original research additions to Wikipedia. Under Wikipedia policy, I agree that these pages should be deleted. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please also the following sub-pages:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The Septeber 11 2001 Conspiracy Guild
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild (which already is already up for a seperate vfd)

• I think we should delete all these pages. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Sasquatch. --Phroziac (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. The only member of these "WikiProjects" is User:Striver. AlbertR 01:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • coment yes, of course, i just started them, those and the Islam PROJECTS. If you take a look, you will see that discusions is already started in the "world conspiracy" already! --Striver 01:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all. -Splash 01:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. There are lots of people with outside-the-mainstream views who work to overcome majority POV in articles. As long as it's civil discourse and not edit wars and such, any contribution is helpful. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Coment Thank you! And i hope everyone remebers this, we who belive in a curent date conspiracy are grossly outnumbered. --Striver 01:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Don't necessarily take that as an endorsement of your POV, mind. I just don't like seeing minorities interested in civil discourse and contribution getting the bum's rush. Just remember that original research still isn't allowed. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Strongest Keep

1. Its not a article, the template says "article"
2. Its a project, aimed at, yes exactly what a project is supposed to do: try to improve existing articles.
3. Go and VFD Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG if you are sincere, otherwise you are exposing your falsehood.

Truth is, you are allergical to the word "conspiracy" and can not stand that there is a PROJECT aimed to improve the quality of the manny conspircy ARTICLES in WP.

--Striver 01:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem lies that a conspiracy theory is by definition original research I quote from conspiracy theory: "Colloquially, a conspiracy theory is any non-mainstream theory about current or historical events, with the connotation that that theory is unfounded, outlandish, or irrational or in some way unworthy of serious consideration." and that your project states that you "Feel that evidence for that belief needs to be represented in Wikipedia". This is evident as you note that the 9/11 Commission Report is "Full of blatant lies, whitewash. The most accepted coincidence theory, same as the Warren Commission." on Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild (among others on that page). This therefore presents some conflicts with the rules of Wikipedia and we should not promote adding conspiracy theories into Wikipedia. If you feel that this project is important, I suggest you reword it so it is not as controversial. And just because the tag says article doesn't mean it can't be applied to other pages, the VfD is here to get a community consensus about certain pages in Wikipedia. And adding original research is in contrary to current policy. And you can go VfD Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG as you have the right to so long as you provide a valid explination on the VfD page on why the project is innapropriate. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or improve.. - I think the concerns that the Wikiproject pages are encouraging original research are valid. However, there are notable conspiracy theories, also, which have and should have articles. I see nothing wrong with a project for improving articles on the subjects, so long as it is not soliciting original research or original/non-well-known conspiracy theories. --Mysidia 01:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Bro, of course articles need to be NPOV and sourced, but a project? A project is like a talk page, it does not need to be NPOV at all, its like a private room where we disscus strategies. if we cant talk open, how are we suppposed to develop our ideas and know what to add to the articles and what to not add, and what to improve and source better? Do whe need to be "politicaly correct" even in a project that is not included in the ecyclopedia? Anyway, if you insist, then help me to NPOV it. Whadever it takes to be able to have a common ground where we can assemble, even if it means we must keep mainstreamers happy even in our projekt. --Striver 01:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the only compromise most people are willing to make is if you clearly define this project as limited to working on pages labeled conspiracy theories. I have no problem with a conspiracy project dedicated to working on 9/11 conspiracy theories, Kennedy assassination theories or Nick Berg conspiracy theories but you clearly set your scope beyond that. Therein lies the major problem as I said above, we do not want original research on Zionism for example. Again, if you re-evaluated your scope, I think most users would not have a problem. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have enough original research on VFD these days without WikiProjects to promote it. PS You can write "strongest keep" all you like, your vote still only counts one. Agentsoo 01:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Yeah, thats great remove the project since you dont like the subject... lets forget that there is articles about it, lets decide that those articles dont deserve a project, that is the most fair thing to do, isnt it? --Striver 01:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: There are many notable conspiracy theories (i.e. "Who really shot JFK?" and so forth). However, those articles only report on actual events and circumstances regarding the conspiracy. As has been stated, this project does not seem to exist for that purpose. Wikipedia is neither a place for original research, nor a soapbox. --ArmadniGeneral 01:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because the Ur-Quan masters who beam instructions into my head through my teeth command it. Nandesuka 01:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, POV, etc. I think User:Striver would be more comfortable on Usenet, or running his own website. Binadot 02:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because Nandesuka's thoughts are beaming into my head (and because these pages only support original research -- but are those really my thoughts or . . . )--Noitall 02:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - conspiracy theorists can create a new theory of just about everything, drawing connection between any random details (which, to them, are never random or coincidental), meaning that every single article could end up with its own conspiracy addenda. They are likely to condemn this VFD as a part of a worldwide conspiracy of suppression by their favorite secret society or agency. There are some notable conspiracy theories, most others are irrelevant. - Skysmith 11:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per Sasquatch. I believe Conwiki - The conspiracy wiki is where you should focus your efforts, Striver. --Quasipalm 13:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per Sasquatch and the Illuminati and the Freemasons. --Several Times 14:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that's what this project will rapidly become if kept. ral315 20:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Sasquatch. Pavel Vozenilek 21:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, conspiracy theories = POV original research. JamesBurns 03:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to be related to Wikipedia work. arj 23:46, 6 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.