[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. With opinions about equally divided, I must examine the weight of the arguments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The argument for retention is that the conspiracy theories are notable through coverage in reliable sources, and the principal argument for deletion is that the existence of the article gives undue weight to these fringe theories. These are both valid arguments, and determining which one is more convincing under the present circumstances is not my job as closer, but the job of the community by way of this discussion. There being no consensus in this matter, the article is kept by default for lack of a consensus to delete it.  Sandstein  11:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

[edit]
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This probably passes WP:GNG, but it totally fails WP:NOT. It's an unnecessary, non-neutral content fork that gives undue weight to conspiracy theories of dubious accuracy. pbp 02:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment on nominator Per this diff it seems even the nominator agrees this should not be deleted due to sourcing. A merge was specifically rejected by consensus of the article editors as THAT would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and WP:ONEWAY seems to advocate for exactly the solution we are in right now. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misinterpreted what I said. I said that I was unsure of the outcome of an AfD, not the necessity of the AfD. The comment you link is a comment on how I expected you/Dream et. al to vote, not a comment on whether I personally believed that it should be deleted. I have never (on my talk page, in this AfD or anywhere else) asserted that this was non-notable. This nomination is based on considerations other than notability; as are every single one of the delete votes. Had I not believed that this should be deleted, I would not have nominated it. And while we're questioning my nominating rationale, I'd like to add WP:NOTNEWS as another important guideline to consider. pbp 07:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind people that GNG isn't the only policy to consider here. Passing GNG ≠ auto keep pbp 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct, that is not the only policy in play. Here are items from WP:FRINGE that would seem to indicate this article is appropriate.
  • if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play.
  • To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.
  • A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
  • Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete- virtually every major story out there is going to attract a conspiracy theorist or twenty. One aviation disaster wants to blame coronal mass ejections and Bermuda Triangle but it's really fringe stuff. If this stays, we're going to wind up with a bunch of fringe shadow articles for every major story on wikipedia. I'm sorry but at the moment, there is little real merit. Some initial confusion perhaps and some rush by journalists. I say delete and if we get a grassy knoll level or Roswell level interest or discrepancies later we can recreate.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct as to the likely origin of a number of the conspiracy theories. But once they began, they have become notable and commented on by many sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about using Fringe: Can you please explain why as to "Per WP:FRINGE?" While the article is just a bunch of false theories, Fringe does state: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." Considering the publications used in the references, I think that Fringe would be more towards support of keeping the article than deleting it. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If articles like this one are allowed to remain, then Wikipedia will lose credibility as a source for information. These conspiracy theories have not become notable enough to warrant consideration and this article should be deleted. Andrew327 04:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I agree with PurpleBackpack on this one as this article seems very bias in nature and as stated above it fails WP:NOT.TJD2 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it gets to the same level as JFK assassination conspiracies or 9/11 Conspiracies, sure. But every big event in America, especially if it has any political consequences will generate fringe conspiracy claims. We don't have to document them all, and should just document those that have become significantly prominent. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we remove the qualifier of GNG, we might as well remove all conspiracy theory portions from the Holocaust and 9/11, as we spend less time "covering" those nowadays than we do these. Agree with Hari, but unless there are rules regarding the level of coverage necessary for fringe psychos to be considered legitimate, I think we've already reached it (i.e. AC360 recent coverage) --Brinlong (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's better here than on the main article. Also, the merge was opposed. --Auric talk 14:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I hate conspiracy theories and generally oppose giving them unnecessary credence, but in this case these theories now appear to have moved off web pages and into actual harassment of individuals i.e. have taken on a life of their own [1] and are not simply wind. Mrwhoohoo (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator and per Mrwhoohoo. The topic easily passes WP:GNG. I'm not sure how editors are basing their claims that it's "marginal" or "fringe" when they're attracting significant coverage in reliable sources around the world. I've tried to avoid undue weight to these admittedly crazy theories, generally by only mentioning each in a sentence or two. The comparison with the Aurora shootings is weak—these conspiracy theories have received much more attention. Finally, I think extended coverage in the main article would be WP:UNDUE, so restricting the conspiracy theories to a standalone article is better in line with policy. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT TO CLOSER - Its pretty obvious which way consensus is leaning, but IMO its mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Everyone is linking to WP:FRINGE and WP:NOT with zero explanation of what they think applies. I have quoted FRINGE extensively in a comment above, and I think its clear that the FRINGE guideline says this article should stay. It should be incumbent on the delete !votes to say what part of FRINGE they think this article fails. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google search for "Sandy Hook conspiracy" has 17,500 hits under News and 103,000,000 under Web. The subject is notable and sourced. USchick (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are to do a google search you have to take out the blogs and unreliable sources per WP:GOOGLEHITS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In looking at the references, several are not about how these theories hold water but about how they are false or "hoaxes", like:
  • Reference 16...Talking Points Memo, which said the LIBOR rumor was "false" and a "fiction" and that any connection alleged between the murderer's father was "100 % without evidence".
  • Reference 2/14...The Atlantic Wire which states that the "conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook massacre-...would be laughable if they weren't so offensive." and whose title is Newtown Conspiracy Theories, Debunked.
  • Reference 13...Is Conspiracy Cafe really considered a reliable source?
  • References 10 & 3... Consider the Press TV allegations. Washington Post calls it an "outlandish theory" and has "obvious logical fallacies" Daily Beast says about the PressTV statements that "it isn’t a real conspiracy until someone invokes Jews. Enter the anti-Semites at Press TV" and that Alex Jones is "unencumbered by facts".
  • Reference 1...InfoSalvo which proclaims in its masthead "Treading on the New World Order". Is this also a reliable source?
  • Reference 4...Salon.Com, Reference 5...Huffington Post, and Reference 6...TIME (quoting the TIME article) all talk about how the man who sheltered some children (and a bus driver who escaped the carnage) is being harassed and whose wife is worried for their safety.
  • Reference 28...LiveScience states in its title "Contradictions Don't Deter Conspiracy Theorists"
  • Reference 29...Washington Times's story has a subtitle of "Turning to bizarre theories is a way to avoid an unpleasant truth".
  • Reference 19 directly links to a YouTube video which is discussed in Reference
So, at least thirteen of the references have a common thread....they are either about how the conspiracy enthusiasts' arguments are false, they debunk the theories, they call them outlandish or they invoke WP:BLP concerns about how a Good Samaritan is being harassed and whose family is fearful for their safety... Perhaps if the article is kept a more-fitting title would be something like Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting fringe theories or use the Westboro Baptist Church article as a model, where the vast majority of the content consists of reactions in opposition to that organization's core beliefs and actions.
I do think that some editorial judgement is called-for in this situation. We make judgements every day about what to include and what not to include on these electronic pages. As the 'What Wikipedia is not' policy states:
"not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" & "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia".
Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Shearonink (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is claiming the conspiracy theories are TRUE. WP:FRINGE specifically addresses sites which are discussing the conspiracies and debunking them are a sufficient signal of notability to be covered in wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The conspiracy enthusiasts themselves are certainly claiming that their theories are true. Shearonink (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources are being added.USchick (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are all the additional sources talking about how these theories have been rejected by what Wikipedia regards as reliable? Every single reliable source I have seen states that these various theories are either fringe, or that they are false, or that they are anti-Semitic, that they are unverified, that they are unsupported by the facts, that they are rumors and so on... If the reliable sources are stating that these theories are false/unverified/rumor, then why do unverified falsehoods get an article? And now we have the added fillip that these theories have real-life consequences to the man who sheltered survivors... he is being harassed via phone-calls & emails, his spouse is fearful for their safety, and he has talked to police about his situation. Shearonink (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good sources, more and more are coming online every day. USchick (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused as to what the criteria for an article are. Wikipedia is not claiming they are true. We are claiming they are notable. The fact that multiple major outlets are commenting on the conspiracy theories is itself notable and should be documented. We are actively debunking the conspiracy theories as well in our article. Many conspiracy theories have articles on wikipedia. If your worries were true, we would be one of the most lunatic fringe sites on the entire internet. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are addressing my thoughts posted above, I have no confusion about the issues or what the criteria are, neither do I have any worries, as an aside I was addressing what was previously posted, that 'Nobody is claiming the conspiracy theories are TRUE', that is all. I think it is inherently self-evident that the conspiracy enthusiasts have an almost-religious faith and fervour that their claims are indeed true. The major outlets' commentary characterizing and even proving the various theories as false/rumor/patently anti-Semitic/unverified is what makes the theories notable, not the conspiracy enthusiasts' various assertions.Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "nobody" I was referring to was "nobody commenting here", as your original comments seemed to be arguing against. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't we wait a bit anyways before creating this article? It's likely just a small spike of interest. Once the next big American tragedy hits, the conspiracy scaremonger will just flock to that one. I don't think WP should be covering every single minor little controversy or fringe theory. I think we should strengthen general notability guidelines as they might be too lax. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - We should wait until somebody can't take it any longer and commits suicide. Or someone gets arrested or sued. Or some kid gets suspended for a truther hate poem and the parents take the school district to court. We should certainly not be swayed by a think piece a reporter throws out there on a slow news day.Cybersecurityczar (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The theories themselves are notable as reactions to the shootings, and they have received media attention. I don't really see why the info can't be condensed into a section in the parent article. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the page about Australia's Port Arthur massacre has a small section about conspiracy theories, I think that is still too much. Maybe one sentence on the main article is enough, but this article up for deletion is just a page of WP:Fringe, even if it is sourced. Paris1127 (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What one person might call a conspiracy theory, someone else may call a pretext by thrill-seekers for wanton infliction of emotional distress. There is something depraved and sadistic about those on the social media who relentlessly taunt and humiliate the Sandy Hook community, and when they are criticized, they say, Oh, we have unanswered questions and therefore we can accuse the families of being fake. If you follow closely the social media, you will find that the most hurtful outcome has been that, even when so-called truther theories were debunked, there would be crowds of followers who would continue to insist that they were not debunked and they would attack the Sandy Hook families again with renewed vigor. I don't mean to get into details here, but this was just a quick example of what kind of editing this piece would require. Would you accept original research on the matter? No. And so, would you go ahead and dignify as theories these pretexts for causing deep emotional pain -- without acknowledging that online groups would spontaneously form to ambush the Sandy Hook community? The title alone of this article would be a topic of endless debate, since the FBI for example has published a 7-stage model for hate group activity, and it makes a clear distinction between the irrational rhetoric of conspiracy theorists and the irrational hatred expressed by thrill-seekers. So, would this article incorporate both of these somehow, or would this article put aside the irrational hate piece and treat the conspiracy theories as legitimate efforts at critical thinking? Remember, the basic narrative is that Obama and the media staged a fake massacre in Newtown with crisis actors and that these grieving families are faking their tears as part of an effort to deceive the nation. As we attempt to formulate this article we will find that in the eyes of the insolent, the most ludicrous accusations will never be debunked. This topic is so convoluted that just publishing it will assure long-term unresolved grief for those who have been attacked. And for what? It's an absurdity inside a delusion inside a lunacy. Cybersecurityczar (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question that might give me some intellectual clarity: The Internet is rife with taunting attacks falsely announcing that someone has died. For example, RIP Megan Fox -- retweeted thousands of times, with bystanders laughingly noting that the Twitterverse has killed more celebrities than The Hunger Games. So, would an article on this phenomenon be automatically rejected on Wikipedia? Thank you for your consideration. Cybersecurityczar (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's death hoax. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If international media covered the story over a period of several weeks, possibly. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it gives undue weight to what is (at best) a fringe theory. Tom Harrison Talk 12:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook shooting appeared almost immediately after the event was reported. There's conspiracy media dating back to three days after the shooting, and the volume of the false information has been growing ever since. It's useful to collect and debunk all those rumors in one place. --Mr. Billion (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" It's useful to collect and debunk all those rumors in one place." That, however is not the job (or at least the primary job) of Wikipedia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This meets WP:GNG. Newsworthy, even if I totally disagree with the conspiracy theorists. Plus, this article would be able to keep some pressure off the main article with regards to conspiracies and allegations. WarwulfX (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a short term blip most likely. It's only because it was a big media event. Every tragedy has conspiracy theories, especially once it becomes politicized. It was the same with the Aurora shootings. Once the next tragedy rolls around, this will be forgotten and they will just flock to that. It's a common cycle. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at the sources, there seems to be no question that these ideas have received enough attention to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This article is very bias and should in the least be merged with the original article covering the incident. There is no reason there should be an article dedicated to this.71.95.82.119 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the article has reliable sources it should be kept. Not liking the subject matter is not a reason to delete. Portillo (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. If this gets coverage in real news sources rather than wacky ones + blogosphere then it might be good to have an article which documents the fact that there are a lot of medically insane people out there. IF this is somehow kept, then it really needs to be rewritten because the current version is a simply ridiculous and glaring embarrassment to Wikipedia (let me note that whoever is responsible for the problematic text has certainly mastered looking like they are following Wikipedia's neutrality policies - this is a more general problem actually).Volunteer Marek 23:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the topic isn't being covered in "wacky" news sources and blogs, but it's definitely being covered in "real news sources." Of the 39 (!) references already on the article, there's Edmonton Journal, The Tennessean, The Globe and Mail, Time, Vancouver Sun, Newsday, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, Salon, The Huffington Post, Gawker, Calgary Herald, Daily Mail, Fox News, Sun-Sentinel, International Business Times, The Washington Post, The Vancouver Sun, Los Angeles Times, Talking Points Memo, and The Washington Times. If you support deletion based on something such as what Wikipedia is not, I can accept that, though I disagree. But if your argument is that the topic isn't being covered in real news sources, I'm incredulous. Perhaps you were so stricken by the "glaring embarrassment" of an article to look at the references section. --BDD (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the stuff in sources which could be considered reliable are either editorials (Washington Times, Atlantic) or barely related (Fox News) or related to the shooting rather than conspiracies (LA Times), or about the gun control legislation rather than conspiracies (Time) or tabloids (Daily Mail). But cobbling together a bunch of border-line-reliable-or-border-line-relevant sources does not actually add up to reliable-and-relevant. Although it's true that this does highlight to some extent a problem with Wikipedia's sourcing policy, which allows way too much leeway with questionable sources.Volunteer Marek 00:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if you need a clear cut example that this article is completely wacked from a POV point of view (yes, I know that's not a criteria for notability) then note that a lot of these sources you mention - particularly the better ones - discuss the harassment that Rosen has suffered from the hands of conspiracy theorists. For example the Daily News one. Yet, the story of Rosen's harassment IS NOT EVEN IN THE ARTICLE. Rather, the article tries very hard to present the topic in a "well, some people say these are conspiracy theories, but maybe they have some truth to them" kind of voice. Ridiculous.Volunteer Marek 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are making up your own standards for what counts.Gaijin42 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now would be a good time to bring up WP:NOTNEWS. Just because something is mentioned in news outlets doesn't mean it is of the lasting importance needed to justify a Wikipedia article. pbp 06:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is Not News relevant in this case? "Lasting importance" of an event that happened a month ago? With that logic, the article about the shooting should be deleted as well. USchick (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I believe Gaijin has done a spectacular job of listing a multitude of reliable sources that have covered this phenomenon. Remember that WP:FRINGE states:
  • "To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia."
  • "A fringe subject ... is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers."
  • "References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."
These qualifications are all satisfied given the evidence that Gaijin has provided. The Calgary Sun article he referenced is a work of over 1,000 words. It's not some blurb snippet. Everyone who has said that no "real" news organizations have covered this has not looked over the multitude of sources that are reporting on this. Remember that including the article in Wikipedia shouldn't be taken as a voice of acceptance, but rather as a recognition of coverage. -- Veggies (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Since there is a lot of comments above about what kind of sources we are using and then not meeting WP:RS, I thought I would copy the list of sources dicussing this from the refs/talk page to here.

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that these are either passing mentions of the conspiracy theories, relatively minor local papers, general internet crap or actually... "semi-reliable sources" which reference aspects which are not directly related to the conspiracy theories themselves but to the shooting.Volunteer Marek 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are looking at. Time, CNN, Washington times, with stories dedicated to the conspiracy theories of sandy hook. Calgary herald and edmonton journal a minor local paper? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought CNN, foxnews, and msnbc were all propaganda outlets vs reputable journalists ;-). In all seriousness, thank you for hard work on these sources. There's more out there than I initially thought. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking at sources, why are you getting them from the talk page and not from the article? USchick (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep because there is enough coverage for WP:NOTABLE, and we do document WP:FRINGE in a WP:NPOV manner, without WP:UNDUE. If anyone doubts the seriousness of how deeply this sort of fringe theory infects the human psyche, let them consider that four of the top 8 auto-completion results on Google refer to conspiracy, actors, conspiracy video and hoax. Upgrade to strong keep because keeping this sort of stuff hived off from the main article is good for the main article. And clearly this is not a fork, as it stands right now. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Ample news coverage about various conspiracy theories, and even articles talking about why the conspiracy theories exist. Dream Focus 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absurd overcoverage of ultra-fringe theories, giving them far more weight and attention than they deserve. Not every wacky conspiracy theory that someone's suggested needs to be documented by Wikipedia. This material is already covered sufficiently by a paragraph in Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, it doesn't justify its own article. Robofish (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The closing admin should make sure to throw out all of the WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE arguments being used above because the editors clearly do not understand what those actually say. Yes, the conspiracy theories are untrue, that's why they are conspiracy theories. But their inaccuracy is irrelevant. They have received significant coverage all across the board and this makes them notable. SilverserenC 21:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources:
Why We Can't Ignore The Truthers - Salon
Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories Edge Toward The Mainstream - Buzzfeed
Sandy Hook massacre a 'hoax', say conspiracy theorists - News.com.au
Don’t Blame the Sandy Hook Truthers - Slate Magazine
Sandy Hook 'truthers' harass Newtown man, conspiracy theories go viral - Christian Science Monitor
This is a small sampling of the numerous sources that are entirely about the subject. Again, how does this not meet WP:N? SilverserenC 21:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, a conspiracy theory could be true, it might be a long-shot or there might be more reasonable explanations but there is nothing out there that says that conspiracy theories are patently false, they are theories that imply a conspiracy - which could be illegal. All of the conspiracies out there are mostly garbage quite frankly and I think we're far from having a true conspiracy.....we don't have witnesses saying that they saw 3-5 armed men, black vans, helicopters....we don't have people saying that these kids never existed....in short, we don't have any RS sources that can give validity to any of the conspiracy theories out there that I've heard about. Just confusion at first and some dead ends. Certainly if the article stays it needs a lot of work, it needs to treat the various conspiracies as NPOV and be very well cited. I voted delete but there are a lot more coverage of this than there was a few days ago but just because there is more out there doesn't mean it all isn't garbage and not worthy of mention. We have to be reasonable as Wikipedians. Show men an RS that has a witness that can implicate a conspiracy - just one, one good reporter with a real witness right now (not on Dec 17th) that gives validity to any of the wild cocamamy stuff out there and I'll reverse my vote. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that conspiracy theories are only notable when there is some sort of evidence for them? JFK, fine, but there is no evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Notability has nothing to do with the truth of a subject. Yes, the article definitely needs to be presented in the NPOV way and point out that all the sources think its completely fake, but again, NPOV has nothing to do with notability either.
If you are predicating your opinion of notability on some sort of proof that the theories are real, then you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, because you have no idea what WP:N is talking about. SilverserenC 21:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully personal attacks and marginalization are not welcome by this editor. I will keep my own counsel and the policies of wikipedia in mind in deciding when and what to edit. I am saying the fact that we now have six buckets of garbage out there versus two does not make it more notable. The longer this stays in the news, the more garbage it is going to accumulate and no, that doesn't make it any more notable. Let's be collegial, we're working hard out here. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that you are completely and utterly misunderstanding policy is not a personal attack. Notability is how much the subject is covered. Otherwise known as being "noted". As long as it is discussed to a significant extent by reliable publications of a wide variety, then it is notable. One could argue that it has to be discussed for a significant length of time, which I would grant them that that is true, but since the theories are still being discussed in the news, you can use an assumption of the future that they will stop until they actually do. So wait a month and then this article can be renominated if the coverage of such theories stops. SilverserenC 22:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point and the policy but Wikipedia is not a garbage bin. Any person with a keyboard can make up a story, that does not make it even a conspiracy theory and also does not make it notable regardless of the volume. Conspiracy theories have some meat that is real. Most of this garbage is just fiction. At the most, this would merit a one liner saying that the event sparked various spurrious made up stories NOT an article! A Conspiracy Theory needs meat and an article needs the conspiracy theory to be widely covered - witnesses saying there were three shooters on the record etc. Dear god something more than the fabrications of someone at 4am in their basement. Just because it's widespread does not make it worthy of an entire article. Especially when most of this garbage gets recycled from crime to crime. The Libor thing, not new, the Aurora thing claimed this. The claim that this guy and the aurora guy were on strong psychotic medication, also rehash. Some corroborating meat is necessary to merit an article. And yes, you were attempting to marginalize me, please desist sir, I treat you and all my fellow editors with respect. - Justanonymous (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard that one. Can you elaborate on how these aren't conspiracy theories? And I'd agree with you that this would be a bad foundation for an article if only "Any person with a keyboard" were discussing it, but it's getting extensive coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Are you seriously suggesting we can't discuss conspiracy theories without "corroborating meat"? --BDD (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone made up a story and it received a huge amount of news coverage across the board, then yes, it would be notable. Though we usually call those stories fiction. It doesn't matter at all if anything is real. You could have the fakest fake thing of all things fake (which explains most fringe science), but if it received extensive coverage, then that wouldn't matter. The truthfulness of a subject is irrelevant. SilverserenC 22:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Silverseren fiction is fiction and might be noteworth especially if in book format. No, not seriously suggesting that we can't add fictional things as articles, we have plenty of those. However there isn't just WP:Fringe, we also have What Wikipedia is Not as well as WP:GNG and its suprising what GNG covers these days as other esteemed editors have noted. We have to make educated decisions based on all of these policies together and the intent of Wikipedia. I assume in good faith that all the voters on here have done in good faith and I will not demean them or attempt to marginalize any subset of them - they are intelligent editors and they have reached their decisions. My statement regarding conspiracy theories is that a conspiracy theory is not a work of fiction, it is something that might conceivably be true if you follow a certain train of thought logically and if criminal collusion is involved. At some point fiction does not merit conspiracy theory status and it is is just fiction and at some point it's just garbage written by some 14 year old with an over active imagination in his pjs in his basement, and laughing at us discuss this. Should we include the LIBOR conspiracy here as well as at the Aurora page and in every mass crime out there, seems ludicrous to me for us to blindly keep adding works of fiction to every newsworthy event - in that case let's just add a tab to all articles labeled conspiracy theories - I could say that the world trade center was blown up to destroy bonds or as a cover for a heist but that would just be fiction not a conspiracy theory. But yes Conspiracy Theories need something to elevate them to that level.....someone heard shots from the grassy knoll, there is no way one bullet could do that, black helicopters seen by witneses, a third shooter seen etc. Fiction is just Fiction.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
by the way I've had trouble adding books to Wikipedia, actual published books of fiction - the margin is high. A three sentence string of fictional garbage derived from the mind of a half asleep teenager should not merit stand alone articles on here particularly on multiple so called conspiracy pages. LIBOR conspiracy is UTTER JUNK. Sorry, sanity has to take over at some point No?-Justanonymous (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Utter junk covered by 50+ reliable sources is wiki worthy. end of discussion. We have articles about memes, pranks, and everything else that is equally junk. "Determining notability does not depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Gaijin42 (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, nobody gets to claim end of discussion, count the votes please sir. If you will. Consensus rules here let us not forget the policies we have created. Unless, you wish you claim a different title.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the policy that everyone is voting delete with is WP:FRINGE and that policy specifically says to have articles on fringe theories which are covered in reliable sources. This topic CLEARLY surpasses that requirement by a ridiculous margin. This is not a vote, so the # does not matter. This consensus will be decided by arguments WHICH ADHERE TO POLICY. The vast majority of delete votes do not. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think someone else said it is possible to Merge the content of articles, so what I suggest is that for now some information about the conspiracy theories is included in the main article, but that this article ceases to be. My reason is that we are writing a sort of encyclopedia, which means that we have to imagine what a reader will want to know when they look up this subject in a few years. Lots of other bad things happen, and sometimes there are conspiracy theories at the time, or for a few weeks after the event, but these gradually fade away. Right now we don't know whether these theories will also die out over time. If they do, it would be nuts to give them a separate article, because they won't be a separate thing that people in the future will be looking for as an article. So I think for now we shouldn't have this article. Instead, we could review the issue in (say) a year. If, at that time, these theories still have currency, we can give them a separate article then. Right now, giving these theories an article of their own is engaging in a sort of futurology. It's a sort of Occam's Razor thing. Hope this is OK. RomanSpa (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, basically, your argument boils down to that we should have our rules on notability only apply to things that people look up. Anything people don't look up is unnecessary. Well, that makes it easier. All that means we need to do is do a page view list for the past year and delete every article that has zero views, regardless of the subject or content. SilverserenC 02:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Romanspa, it should be a one liner on the main article saying that this event generated significant conspiracy theory activity. If at a later time we find merit in some of those conspiracy theories like Roswell/Grassy Knoll we can create an article with appropriate adherence to policy.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the bar for article creation is not importance. It is notability. This is very clearly spelled out in the policies. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've had many esteemed editors vote. You individually Giajin42 don't get to call it. The consensus does. Let's let greater minds weigh the merits - shall we? -Justanonymous (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is voting here. AfD and other discussions on Wikipedia are decided by consensus, not by tallying the results at some arbitrary time. It might serve you and the community well to look over WP:DEM. -- Veggies (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oh, well let the consensus decide. Consensus is voting. Unless you mean your decision is the consensus, but that would be tyranny? No? -Justanonymous (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to assume that you throw around terms (important ones to the function of Wikipedia) you don't fully understand. Please read WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote." -- Veggies (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No please don't assume you know what they say about assumers. And don't attack my intellect please, it's unprofessional and this editor doesn't appreciate attempts at marginalization, that's not a professional way to get things done. Please, let's just go from the premise that all editors are intellectually equal - shall we - that's most respectful. Many editors have weighed in. Giajin42 said the discussion was over, I challenged saying it was most certianly not his place to "call it" and it is not your place to call it either "Veggies" as it is not my place to call it either. There is a discussion going on and it is not the role of editors to marginalize the votes or views of others. Let's keep it open for a while. Many people are weighing in and let us not marginalize them either, please.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My "end of discussion" comment was a rhetorical device. I was not trying to claim that this AFD should actually be closed at this moment, just that your line of argument had been (imo) countered by policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are swaying me, good arguments. Not quite there yet, and you don't have to convince me per se, but the discussion is helpful. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll reiterate my points. This is just the conspiracy theory de jure, and will be likely be forgotten about in 5 years. It will continue on in only the most fringe sources. I think there's enough RS to warrant an inclusion in the main Sandy hooks article. 9/11 Conspiracies, Holocaust Denial are much more significant conspiracy theories with much more lasting staying power, and much more coverage by reliable sources. That is why those should have full articles. I just don't think Wikipedia should be documenting every single little thing that becomes big in the media for a few days or weeks. A paragraph under Reactions in the main article is fine. I think it has enough RS for that. If this turns into a conspiracy theory with similar cultural importance as the JFK assassinations, or even chemtrails, then it should get an article. I think Wikipedia editors are too quick to want to make separate articles when it might be best to expand a current article. Just wait a little bit. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction - I think you mean du jour rather than de jure. Robofish (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a talk page, much more laxed on punctuation, spelling etc. Seems marginalizing to comment on that. I think all of us understood what he was trying to say. Agree with the comment also. Will this article be a footnote in 5 years? -Justanonymous (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily a reasonable suggestion, but the possibility of a merge was pretty soundly opposed in previous discussion. Those of us who want to keep think this is appropriate treatment per WP:FRINGE, and most people who want to delete really don't want to mention the conspiracy theories at all, so the apparent consensus against merging seems to be the one thing we can agree on. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with your assessment. There is a strong consensus AGAINST merge currently.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the criteria in NOTNEWS apply. Its not original reporting, not breaking news or routine coverage, and 3 and 4 are obviously not applicable. Do you have a specific part of WP:NOT that you think applies? Its a very long policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're Right on WP:NOTNEWS I thought it might apply for WP:NOT I would say WP:SOAP Applies here because this Conspiracy is mainly Faked evidence or earlier facts from the media and has already been disproven I consider most of the conspiracy theories that have surfaced yet as Propaganda and has no place on the wiki as a standalone Article! maybe in the main Article of the shooting it can be mentioned but not in detail! just my two cents.. Fox2k11 (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, did you look at WP:NOTNEWS, and its current status as a soft redirect? We do news; we just don't function as a newspaper. As Gaijin pointed out, we're not playing newspaper here. You also seem to be making a converse WP:TDLI argument. --BDD (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted delete and admittedly I am on the fence now after discussion but the quality of the article is very low right now. It hasnt really improved in the last week. Generally an article hat is seeking reason to live improves. I've done it. When I start an article, I focus on quickly getting it to a quality that nobody would dispute belongs on Wikipedia. To all of you fighting to keep, improve the article please, no quicker way to silence dissent than by having a high quality article. My 2 cents. I'm still delete but I'm watching-Justanonymous (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the creator, I'm just a bit fatigued with it. I certainly focus on quality too; I've made it my goal to have every sentence supported with at least one ref here. And it's still basically at that point. How do you find the quality to be "very low"? Even most delete votes are less about the state of the article and more about the scope. What's your Heymann standard here? --BDD (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a few responses. 1) article is in poor shape because it was nominated within hours of being created. Of course it isnt mature. 2) Tough to get motivated to put a lot of work into an article when there is a sword hanging overhead. 3) If you are in the state where you think improvement could save the article, then policy explicitly says deletion should not be done.4) too late now. we are 9 days into a 7 day AFD. The article will be kept or not on its current state. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - It is important that these be kept. Especially in this age of compartmentalization and State secret-keeping, once we start censoring ideas because a majority feel them to be outlandish or distasteful, we have begun down a slippery slope. I am not an apologist for any of the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories-- I believe them all to be stupid-- but what must also be acknowledged is that while most conspiracy theories may be crazy, some of them are believed by a majority to be more truthful than the official story, and others, while mostly wrong, still contain elements of truth that are missing from official accounts. It is only in the free exploration of conspiracy theories that people can draw their own conclusions if they are so inclined; the number and type of conspiracy theories that evolve around a subject could also be considered a litmus test for how much a citizenry distrusts its government, and in this manner their enumeration could have social study value. Who is to say what is a conspiracy theory? "Young Earth Creationism" is a conspiracy theory against science, yet its page is safe on this site. There are at least a dozen theories as to who Jack the Ripper was in the Whitechapel murders, and while most of them would have been considered conspiracy theories then, today any one of the theories, or none of them, could be valid. At least we can consider that one of them may be true; consider how lost we would be today if they had not survived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.155.97 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 24 January 2013
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.
  1. ^ http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16529522-grandfather-who-comforted-sandy-hook-elementary-kids-says-truthers-are-targeting-him
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories&oldid=1144346397"