Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory (second nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:44, 14 February 2007

NESARA conspiracy theory

The article in its current form lacks reliable sources, currently containing none. Seems to fall into line with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, fails WP:V and WP:RS. The only sites presented seem to be those of its creators, no credible news sites, government sites etc. Since noone is covering this "conspiracy theory" / "cult", it seems to also fail WP:N. Over a year and a half ago there was promises made no the previous AfD to find some RS sources, none which have materialized it seems, I think that further shows there just are not any. Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously nominated for deletion here. The result was keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my reasoning above. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A group meeting at KFC once a week to discuss it does not make the theory notable. Fundamental Dan 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the concept is absurd, it's better known than the other NESARA article. And Quatloos, which is a WP:RS about other matters, has a forum and FAQ about it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quatloos may be WP:RS, however their forum contents surely are not. A FAQ possibly if craeted by them and not located on the forum. That still creates an entire article based on 1 source, much of the information in the article is not confirmed through the source as well. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked up the webpage on NESARA that is located on Quatloss. It is directly related to the article NESARA however, not related to this conspiracy theory which is, NESARA conspiracy theory. It does not support any of the information located in it, but talks about the "law" that the NESARA article itself discusses, not the conspiracy this article discusses. Perhaps later I will add it to the NESARA article as a source, however it does not support the ideas of any conspiracy nor even discuss a conspiracy. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of the 12 references, at least 5 are reliable news media or alternative news media (such as the Quatloos article). That article notes the real NESARA concept, but is over 2/3 about the conspiracy theory (including some commentary by the people behind the real proposal). Even if you were to exclude that, it's over half about the conspiracy/hoax. That being clear, I'm forced to conclude this is a bad faith nomination. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More harrassment, you already stated long ago you assume bad faith in everything I do, and magically found your way here. Now I have treated you with respect, and I ask you do the same. More then half of the soruces are not WP:RS, news doesnt mean some random person reported it as such. The WP:RS source is Tacoma as pointed out below and is a local paper, leaving the issue of an entire article sourced to one place, and it not meeting WP:N, since it doesnt have multiple non trivial sources, just a single source of information. Others can easily review the source if they feel I am wrong. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is irrelevant to wikipedia and fails WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The conspiracy theory was covered in a series of articles in a mainstream newspaper, the Tacoma News Tribune. The articles [1] are linked from this article and have been linked from this article since it was created in 2005. --Metropolitan90 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the articles and it seems the sole source is a single local paper in Tacoma. Still fails WP:RS and WP:N. Are there more sources, perhaps from more then a local paper? CNN, New York Times? BBC? Something that shows more then a single neighborhood covered this, or perhaps made it up. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

smerge to NESARA anything verifiable should be put in the NESARA article. Little is verifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge per Hipocite above, and/or maybe to the NWO conspiracy theory page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 *:I reviewed the articles and it seems the sole source is a single local paper in Tacoma. Still fails WP:RS and WP:N. Are there more sources, perhaps from more then a local paper? CNN, New York Times? BBC? Something that shows more then a single neighborhood covered this, or perhaps made it up. --[[User:NuclearUmpf|Nuclear]]<s>[[User:Zer0faults|Zer0]]</s> 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * '''smerge to [[NESARA]]''' anything verifiable should be put in the NESARA article. Little is verifiable. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
+*'''merge''' per Hipocite above, and/or maybe to the NWO conspiracy theory page. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)