Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 (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)

A hodge-podge coatrack of mostly mistitled and unrelated conspiracy theories, none of which independently arise to the standard of notability we require for an article about an ongoing event. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:PROFRINGE - everything sourced to RS (Washington Post, New York Times, CNBC, etc.) and RS establish these ideas, though ludicrous, pass our GNG for sheer volume and breadth of repetition, not unlike other weird ideas like Roswell UFO incident, etc. The article is a sober, academic treatment and is not actually promoting the ideas, which is a key criteria of PROFRINGE. The first section of this entry, further, establishes the underlying sociological and anthropological importance of irrational thinking in American politics by reference to academic study, justifying an entry providing deeper examination. Finally, not a "hodge podge" but meets our definition of WP:LISTDD. LavaBaron (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, by comparison, in a related AfD BlueSalix noted the case of Boyd Bushman as an example of PROFRINGE, while explaining this is not a case of that. LavaBaron (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly contains sufficient RS to establish notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Definitely passes WP:PROFRINGE as these ideas are written about in mainstream outlets not linked to the original conspiratorial source. I think it might fail WP:NOTNEWS and could possibly be merged into United States Presidential Election, 2016. --DrCruse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:LISTN. Where are the sources about this subject? This loosk to be a mishmash of various incidents a source happened to call a "conspiracy theory". Anything beyond that is WP:OR. See WP:LISTN: "Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. [...] The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." (italics added). In other words, while no one source has to touch on all of these, notability is based on the group, not sources about individual examples. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

They're in the section titled "references." LavaBaron (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Care to highlight any? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Harper's Magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, Media Matters for America, Snopes, Slate, NBC News, The Intercept, Gawker, Real Clear Politics, and Huffington Post. LavaBaron (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

...Ok, let's look at each one.

• Harper's - published in 1964. Not likely about conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election of 2016.
• New York Times - There are zero NY Times citations in the article.
• Washington Post - I guess you could mean either of two:

• One is about a particular conspiracy theory: Hillary's neurological health. This one is the best source in the article you created about that rumor, Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, which is presently snowballing at another AfD.
• The other one is about a particular conspiracy theory: Trump as a plant to support Hillary.

• Media Matters - Hannity said something about Hillary's health. Nothing here about the subject of this page. Just another example.
• Snopes - Not a typical one to highlight, but again, there are two:

• One is also about the Hillary neurological health conspiracy theory.
• The other is also about Trump as a plant for Hillary.

• Slate - Doesn't even mention anything being a conspiracy theory. It's about the specific example of the supposed Trump-Putin connection (which other sources have called a conspiracy theory). Still not about the subject of this page, though.
• NBC News - Also doesn't mention "conspiracy theory". About the specific example of Trump's "rigged" election.
• The Intercept - About the specific example of the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory.
• Gawker - Two articles from Gawker, both about the specific example of Trump being a plant for Hillary.
• Real Clear Politics - About the specific example of Hillary's neurological health.
• Huffington Post - About the specific example of Trump being a plant for Hillary.

Not even one of these supports the notability of this page, which requires not a bunch of sources about a bunch of specific examples of stories that have been called conspiracy theories, but sources about the group that is "conspiracy theories of the 2016 election". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Simply listing every reference in the article and then yelling "irrelevant!" doesn't do much to make your case. Sources do not need to (and rarely do they) reference the title of a WP article verbatim. That's not how this works. I'm shocked you believe it is. (Also, please dial it back to about a 9. Thanks.) LavaBaron (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a weird response (assuming it's neither disingenuous nor an intentional misrepresentation). Where have I said they need to reference the title of an article verbatim? They merely have to be about the subject of the article, and not simply about examples you've decided are part of a larger subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

They're all directly about the subject of the article. The fact you're doubling down on the idea they're not, when anyone can click on any of them and read them, seems to be indicating you're either (A) hoping no one will, or, (B) claiming hey have to reference the subject by name. Which is sort-of ... odd. LavaBaron (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - encyclopedic, with good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Per Rhododendrites's concise analysis of the sourcing. Keep this embarrassment away from here and leave it to the tinfoil side of the Internet, please. Nate • (chatter) 01:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Many RS have discussed the election's conspiracy theories collectively, in enough depth for WP:LISTN. All these articles are about multiple conspiracy theories: three on both sides, one about Trump-targeting ones, and three about Clinton-targeting ones.

• Fox News Latino: discusses Trump plant theory along with Trump campaign's support for various others
• Inquisitr: "The 2016 elections are steeped in conspiracy theories, and Donald Trump is not immune. While Hillary Clinton’s campaign is shrouded in conspiracy theories regarding her health, Donald Trump believes he is fighting a rigged election and voter fraud."
• Chicago Tribune op-ed: "Donald Trump loves conspiracy theories. So do his foes."
• CBS "A guide to the conspiracy theories about Donald Trump"
• CNN: "the Republican presidential nominee has repeatedly amplified and offered roundabout endorsements to conspiracy theories"
• NBC: "Trump's Conspiracy Theories Aren't Far Outside GOP Mainstream"
• Slate (partisan): "The Real Meaning of All Those Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories About Hillary’s Health"

Together, there's enough material to justify a respectable introduction and summary to meet LISTN. FourViolas (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)