502:
based on the now-debunked rumour that Hugo Chavez gave credence to the HAARP nonsense. I'd also like to note that in the past week (since the first AfD's close), the only significant contributors to the article are
Feudonym, Pontificalibus and myself. We all supported deletion, yet we're the only ones who care enough to turn the article into something which isn't quite the embarrassing piece of junk it was. The fact remains that it's an article on an ill-defined topic and serves only to hold marginal stuff that no other self-respecting article deems of any significance. We should recognize that the HAARP and IDF conspiracies described here are not conspiracy theories about the Haitian earthquake specifically but recurring conspiracy theories about HAARP and the IDF that pop up during, respectively, any earthquake and any IDF operation. I suppose we could create
1035:
other cites are not RS. Also I think people are forgetting that while the HAARP story has moved in a tabloid direction, it was originally reported in an RS fashion, no matter how much en-lang wp might be tempted to discount venezuelan and russian sources. IE: if it was a different story about military current affairs, say tu-95 flights down the US east coast between vz and rus, no one would question the RS provenance, with the same reporting chain (northern fleet reports in venezualan media, then picked up by others), its only when the military reporting puts the usa in a more negative light, that people start complaining... it is also good that we have this section, so we can verifiably DEBUNK the chavez video. That is also a public service done by keeping this page, because not everyone will otherwise know the falseness of that video.
438:. I didn't comment at the last debate and, if i did, I would not have supported the retention of the page. But the argument for this nomination is invalid. There can be a "conspiracy theory regarding an event such as earthquake" - someone just has to make one up. The real question is whether such a theory is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Arguing the science (and proving the conspiracy theory wrong) doesn't, in itself, exclude the theory from inclusion in the encyclopedia. If this develops into a extended debate, I may later add my view on the articles notability. But, in acknowledgement of
461:
some guy wrote a conspiracy theory story in a website or newspaper and then the hype of the event (the earthquake in Haiti) brought some attention to such, but this is no more than a gathering of links to gossip like stories that are not to be taken seriously. I mean, look, I am kind of an inclusionist, I hate proposing deletion of articles, but I mean , come on, this goes against common sense, you don't have to evoke any
Knowledge (XXG) guideline to realize the article is per se a joke. Thanks --
957:
article.Let me add, so far there is no logical explanation on why this article should be kept. There are some procedural reasons exposed, but that actually weakens the reason why it should be kept. The article is notable only as a gossip and not a factual oriented story. It started when it was said that Chavez accused the US for the earthquake, but this was later on debunked. So anything else is made up imagination. --
31:
720:
971:"there was a general consensus on deleting the article..." No there wasn't. Look at that discussion again, it was pretty much an even split. Also, many of the people on the "delete" side of the aisle had different reasons for wanting the article deleted. When the folks who want the article deleted can't even agree on
478:. I didn't mean that the argument itself is invalid. It's an invalid reason for deletion. The craziest conspiracy theory can be notable if it gets enough coverage in indpendent sources. I'm not arguing that's the case here either - just pointing out that sanity of the theory is irrelevant to the debate.
246:
This is a second proposal for the deletion of this page. I believe it is important to delete this page since there is not such a thing as
Conspiracy Theory regarding an event as an earthquake. The scientific grounds on tectonic plates are very clear. The so called theories are nothing but not notable
908:
Articles are not kept on the basis of expansion, so you are welcome to write as much as you want. The article is a collection of gossip-like stories (wrongly called here theories). If we were to leave articles because other people wrote an article about it in some website then
Knowledge (XXG) would
460:
What do you mean invalid? Who can take seriously the statement of conspiracy theory regarding an earthquake? I mean, maybe if it was an old hypothesis that had been part of some ancient culture or maybe something that overtime grew to become a real "theory". But the truth of the matter here is that
1034:
With the number of RS on this topic, we will need to put the info somewhere. I think having a subpage makes wp look less "crazy" than if we put a shorter summary version of this info, on the main haiti earthquake page... but I either way we can't just get rid of this many RS's, even if some of the
501:
I don't find the nominator's arguments particularly compelling but I do think the article should be deleted. In fact, I think that the first AfD (closed as "no consensus") should have resulted in deletion and the arguments I made there still stand. On the other hand, some of the "keep" votes were
956:
Actually the closing was proper but the result was wrong, there was a general consensus on deleting the article. The problem is that it was closed and nobody challenged it. That's why it was nominated again for deletion. So, yes, this is the right place to reach consensus on the deletion of the
609:
which obviously has seen quite a bit of traffic, the page views are not really a surprised. More relevant and harder to measure is how many of these pageviews resulted in readers rolling their eyes wondering why this even had a spot on
Knowledge (XXG). And I'll say it again: if people are so
506:
though I seriously doubt it would stand any chance at AfD. Knowledge (XXG) has no obligation to maintain articles for the sole reason that it contains something that can be referenced from somewhere and it has no obligation to track the flavour of the month on the conspiracy blogosphere.
725:
I am gonna have to ask you to refrain from such argument. If that was the case then anybody could write anything and protect it from deletion because of the GFDL argument. So no, that cant be taken into consideration, deletion or no deletions is achieved by consensus. thanks
116:
77:. The nominator states that: "Actually the closing was proper but the result was wrong, there was a general consensus on deleting the article. The problem is that it was closed and nobody challenged it. That's why it was nominated again for deletion." Deletion review is
744:
at the other article. It can NEVER apply to cases where no work is transferred, or it is not supposed to be on the other article and is removed for that case. (This does not mean that the article need to remain an article, only that it should not be deleted. A
359:- When the admin who closed it orignially said it should be re-evaluated at a later date, I'm betting they were thinking of something a little farther off than 6 days after the last one closed. No matter how good faith the nomination is, it still reeks of
889:
I expanded this article with information about the "Big Oil" conspiracy theories; quite a few people have been claiming that the real reason the US is in Haiti is because it wants to secretly take their oil. These theories are not going away.
610:
enamoured with this article that they can't fathom its deletion, then they should roll-up their sleeves and maintain it instead of leaving that work to people forced to waste time on it because they care about
Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility.
215:
111:
860:
In order to be notable enough to appear in
Knowledge (XXG), an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the
784:
There are a number of ways in which the GFDL issue can be addressed. Yes, the simplest is to keep the article but it's not the only one and GFDL should never be the central reason for keeping an article.
143:
138:
293:
209:
175:
147:
130:
934:
is the place to appeal, but not here. There are plenty of sources and information now, even if not at the time of the first AfD. Let it go for a few months, when with more perspective,
667:
Plenty of reliable sources - eg all UK newspapers - have referenced the organ thing. A politican has been sacked for taking it seriously. Maybe it would be better in the main article.
576:
170:
267:
40:
1108:
1082:
1044:
1018:
984:
966:
947:
918:
899:
876:
844:
823:
794:
779:
758:
735:
709:
676:
662:
637:
619:
600:
563:
545:
516:
487:
470:
451:
430:
392:
372:
351:
308:
282:
256:
95:
134:
230:
197:
126:
101:
526:
2010_Haiti_earthquake_conspiracy_theories has been viewed 13535 times in 201002. Where else would this info go? Helped explain the resignation of
360:
1099:- AfDs are listed for a week, and then sometimes relisted for another week, but it is never standard practice to list it for more than a week.
811:
191:
1100:
1036:
867:
Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
815:
750:
701:
591:
arguments should address
Knowledge (XXG) policy which relates to notability and wether the articles contents can be verified. Cheers,
868:
668:
629:
531:
187:
17:
1123:
237:
503:
363:. Wait a few months, then lets look at it then. Until then, we just don't have the perspective to gain any sort of consensus.
649:, so that argument doesn't really hold. And, if it's notable, it could be part of the main article. I'm not sure which
425:
90:
1059:
203:
65:
46:
1073:
I would like to challenge the closing of this AfD proposal. People need at least 30 days to reach consensus. Thanks --
575:: The nummber of times a page has been viewed is in no way evidence of notability. This is discussed in the essay
840:
775:
697:
658:
596:
483:
447:
1078:
1058:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
962:
914:
731:
559:
466:
388:
252:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
624:
ditch the ad hominem. The organ scandal conspiracy story is news, and has been reported by reliable sources -
580:
1104:
1040:
980:
895:
819:
754:
705:
421:
82:
541:
872:
672:
633:
535:
1014:
836:
771:
654:
606:
592:
479:
443:
368:
324:
976:
891:
1010:
1009:
as a load of fringe hogwash based on the rantings of pov-pushing types such as the
Iranian regime.--
646:
1074:
958:
910:
727:
555:
462:
380:
379:
The time since the last AfD is irrelevant. The article has been substantially revised since then.--
248:
223:
832:
790:
615:
512:
408:
943:
740:
No, because this ONLY applies when work is transferred from one article to another, and it is
304:
278:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
767:
693:
439:
403:
364:
1096:
935:
931:
78:
348:
885:. Has been covered in quite a few media outlets by now, including foreign-language ones.
696:
editor contribution history reasons. A portion of this page was split off and merged to
1117:
786:
611:
508:
939:
300:
274:
164:
527:
117:
Articles for deletion/2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories (2nd nomination)
719:
650:
329:
625:
247:
gossip invented by some yellow-journalism newspapers in Europe. Thanks --
327:
The article by itself seems to be a single compilation of gossip.
1052:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
112:
Articles for deletion/2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories
25:
814:
since some of the wacky ideas about it have no conspiracies.
718:
554:
We gotta thank God you don't even have a username dude.--
294:
list of
Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions
653:
argument you refer to. I don't see any on this page!
160:
156:
152:
222:
812:
Fringe theories surrounding the 2010 Haiti earthquake
236:
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1062:). No further edits should be made to this page.
887:I plan on expanding this article sometime soon
268:list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions
975:it should be deleted, that is not consensus.
8:
930:for procedural reasons and substantively.
577:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
288:
262:
626:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8513662.stm
605:Given that the article is linked to from
504:Israel Defense Forces conspiracy theories
127:2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories
102:2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories
292:: This debate has been included in the
266:: This debate has been included in the
1095:the case at AfD. That only happens for
109:
45:For an explanation of the process, see
835:, almost by definition, would apply!
442:'s point above, I will wait and see.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
108:
41:deletion review on 2010 February 14
628:- where else would it be covered?
24:
909:be just a collection of links.--
29:
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
361:WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED
1:
1109:09:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
1083:01:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
1045:23:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
1019:19:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
985:17:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
967:17:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
948:16:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
938:. But the close was proper.
919:17:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
900:14:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
877:17:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
849:"Fringe theory in a nutshell:
845:09:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
824:05:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
795:16:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
780:09:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
770:got to do with this debate?
759:06:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
749:also preserves edit history)
736:06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
710:05:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
677:17:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
663:09:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
638:04:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
620:02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
601:01:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
564:01:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
546:01:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
517:23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
488:00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
471:00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
452:23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
431:23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
393:09:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
373:23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
352:22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
309:22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
283:22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
257:19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
96:01:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
645:: Well, Knowledge (XXG) is
579:, specifically mentioned at
1140:
698:Operation Unified Response
1124:Pages at deletion review
1055:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
936:consensus might change
766:: What on earth does
723:
692:cannot be deleted for
325:2010 Haiti earthquake
107:AfDs for this article:
722:
607:2010 Haiti earthquake
1001:Teetering between
724:
384:
73:The result was
831:: In which case
382:
311:
297:
285:
271:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1131:
1057:
837:Wikipeterproject
772:Wikipeterproject
655:Wikipeterproject
593:Wikipeterproject
549:
480:Wikipeterproject
444:Wikipeterproject
417:
416:
413:
385:
350:
345:
342:
339:
336:
333:
298:
272:
241:
240:
226:
178:
168:
150:
93:
89:
85:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1114:
1113:
1071:
1066:
1060:deletion review
1053:
1003:procedural keep
690:Procedural keep
539:
414:
411:
410:
381:
357:Procedural Keep
343:
340:
337:
334:
331:
328:
183:
174:
141:
125:
122:
105:
91:
87:
83:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1137:
1135:
1127:
1126:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1075:Camilo Sanchez
1070:
1067:
1065:
1064:
1048:
1047:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1005:per above and
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
959:Camilo Sanchez
951:
950:
924:
923:
922:
921:
911:Camilo Sanchez
903:
902:
865:
864:
863:
862:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
761:
728:Camilo Sanchez
713:
712:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
603:
581:WP:POPULARPAGE
567:
566:
556:Camilo Sanchez
551:
550:
544:comment added
520:
519:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
463:Camilo Sanchez
455:
454:
433:
396:
395:
383:Pontificalibus
376:
375:
354:
313:
312:
286:
249:Camilo Sanchez
244:
243:
180:
176:AfD statistics
121:
120:
119:
114:
106:
104:
99:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1136:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1119:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:70.29.210.242
1098:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1068:
1063:
1061:
1056:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:66.220.124.56
1033:
1030:
1029:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
969:
968:
964:
960:
955:
954:
953:
952:
949:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
926:
925:
920:
916:
912:
907:
906:
905:
904:
901:
897:
893:
888:
884:
881:
880:
879:
878:
874:
870:
859:
858:
857:
856:
848:
847:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
827:
826:
825:
821:
817:
816:70.29.210.242
813:
809:
806:
805:
796:
792:
788:
783:
782:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
762:
760:
756:
752:
751:70.29.210.242
748:
743:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
721:
717:
716:
715:
714:
711:
707:
703:
702:70.29.210.242
699:
695:
691:
688:
678:
674:
670:
666:
665:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
640:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
608:
604:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
547:
543:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
521:
518:
514:
510:
505:
500:
497:
496:
489:
485:
481:
477:
474:
473:
472:
468:
464:
459:
458:
457:
456:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
432:
429:
427:
423:
419:
418:
405:
401:
398:
397:
394:
390:
386:
378:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
355:
353:
349:
347:
346:
326:
322:
318:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
295:
291:
287:
284:
280:
276:
269:
265:
261:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
239:
235:
232:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
189:
186:
185:Find sources:
181:
177:
172:
166:
162:
158:
154:
149:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
118:
115:
113:
110:
103:
100:
98:
97:
94:
86:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1092:
1088:
1072:
1054:
1051:
1031:
1006:
1002:
977:Stonemason89
972:
927:
892:Stonemason89
886:
882:
869:93.96.148.42
866:
828:
807:
763:
746:
741:
689:
669:93.96.148.42
642:
630:93.96.148.42
588:
584:
572:
532:93.96.148.42
523:
498:
475:
435:
409:
407:
399:
356:
330:
320:
316:
289:
263:
245:
233:
227:
219:
212:
206:
200:
194:
184:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
1011:Peter cohen
928:Speedy keep
540:—Preceding
528:Jenny Tonge
440:Umbralcorax
404:Umbralcorax
400:Speedy Keep
365:Umbralcorax
210:free images
75:speedy keep
651:ad hominem
643:(Response)
833:WP:FRINGE
301:• Gene93k
275:• Gene93k
1118:Category
1091:that is
787:Pichpich
747:redirect
612:Pichpich
509:Pichpich
476:Response
171:View log
79:that way
1097:WP:RFCs
1069:Closing
940:Bearian
861:theory.
829:Comment
768:WP:GFDL
764:Comment
694:WP:GFDL
647:NOTNEWS
573:Comment
542:undated
436:Comment
412:TheWeak
216:WP refs
204:scholar
144:protect
139:history
92:Windows
1007:delete
932:WP:DRV
808:Rename
589:delete
499:Delete
415:Willed
317:Delete
188:Google
148:delete
84:Fences
1093:never
1089:Reply
321:Merge
231:JSTOR
192:books
165:views
157:watch
153:links
88:&
16:<
1105:talk
1079:talk
1041:talk
1032:Keep
1015:talk
981:talk
963:talk
944:talk
915:talk
896:talk
883:Keep
873:talk
841:talk
820:talk
791:talk
776:talk
755:talk
742:kept
732:talk
706:talk
673:talk
659:talk
634:talk
616:talk
597:talk
587:and
585:Keep
560:talk
536:talk
524:Keep
513:talk
484:talk
467:talk
448:talk
402:per
389:talk
369:talk
305:talk
290:Note
279:talk
264:Note
253:talk
224:FENS
198:news
161:logs
135:talk
131:edit
973:why
810:to
583:.
538:)
530:].
323:to
319:or
299:--
273:--
238:TWL
173:•
169:– (
1120::
1107:)
1081:)
1043:)
1017:)
983:)
965:)
946:)
917:)
898:)
875:)
843:)
822:)
793:)
778:)
757:)
734:)
726:--
708:)
700:.
675:)
661:)
636:)
618:)
599:)
562:)
515:)
486:)
469:)
450:)
424:*
406:.
391:)
371:)
307:)
296:.
281:)
270:.
255:)
218:)
163:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
81:.
43:.
1103:(
1077:(
1039:(
1013:(
979:(
961:(
942:(
913:(
894:(
871:(
839:(
818:(
789:(
774:(
753:(
730:(
704:(
671:(
657:(
632:(
614:(
595:(
558:(
548:.
534:(
511:(
482:(
465:(
446:(
428:)
426:G
422:T
420:(
387:(
367:(
344:i
341:t
338:s
335:u
332:D
303:(
277:(
251:(
242:)
234:·
228:·
220:·
213:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
190:(
182:(
179:)
167:)
129:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.