Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of conspiracy theories

Philosophy of conspiracy theories

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Philosophy of 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)

WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and/ or WP:SYNTH A loose necktie (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've consulted the NOR page and the section on synthesis, and I don't think this article has these problems. I've removed one paragraph anyway, which might be objectionable on notability grounds. And I changed the introduction to be a simple straightforward statement of the topic.

I would note that the content is largely, though not exclusively, a summary of summaries, as can be seen by looking at the references. For example, in one section, I repeatedly cite David Coady's introduction to his book Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate, in which he summarizes the published articles on this topic up until 2006. Isn't that exactly what I'm supposed to do?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knuteson (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Knuteson is the creator of the article and the major contributor to it. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Summarizes a topic from the academic literature without advancing a new thesis about it. It might need a going-over with the encyclopedic-tone-alizer, but the subject is legitimate and the sourcing is OK. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, basically per XOR'easter. bd2412 T 19:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no branch of philosophy, per sources, that is called "Philosophy of conspiracy theories." This is a blatantly false claim. There's a plethora of work on conspiracy theories, in general or about particular ones, their origins, their effect on society and people, and so on. (The text looks like a student's paper, by the way, one of the avalanche of papers that are trying to find their way onto Wikipedia lately.) At best, this text needs to be draftified and get a serious make over. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. (I assume I can vote for a page I originated, although my support is already implicit.) It seems The Gnome is suggesting that one of the sources is illegitimate because it, apparently, characterized the philosophy of conspiracy theory as a "branch" of philosophy. The Gnome calls this a "blatantly false claim." It is not clear which source is the offending one, so that makes checking the context difficult. In any case, I'm not sure it is quite fair to call this a "blatantly false claim." Personally, I would prefer to describe the philosophy of conspiracy theory as a subfield of applied epistemology, which is a subfield (or perhaps "branch") of applied philosophy, which may be considered a branch of philosophy. However, I think there is some ambiguity regarding what counts as a "branch" and that the word may legitimately be used in a loose way in this circumstance. The Gnome may disagree. But I don't think this criticism amounts to much, as there can be little question that it refers to a distinct, albeit small, subfield of philosophy. Knuteson (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)