Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Berg conspiracy theories (1st nomination)

• This page was created when feelings ran high against the US and many people were looking to deflect blame for a horrific act, or were simply enjoying conspiracy theories. Subsequent events refute most of the arguments that this was a US conspiracy. and make the article an embarassment to a NPOV encyclopedia, especially since no information supporting its premise has since surfaced. Either the article should be recast in light of the recent beheadings and other murders, though I think the most appropriate response would be to delete. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. The theories exist, therefore we have to acknowledge them. It is POV to assert that something is true when others say it is false, regardless of politics, etc. Perhaps merging the page with Nick Berg would be a good idea. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There are encyclopedia articles that talk about how the world was once believed to be flat, and though we have clear evidence against this, it doesn't make it less encyclopedic. Articles can describe historical beliefs as well as facts, as long as they don't present them as facts. I would make changes emphasizing that this is in fact a theory, and describe some of the evidence against it, which it currently sorely lacks. Derrick Coetzee 02:37, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid debates, even if the conclusion was incorrect. Make edits if necessary. A lot of work has gone into that and it'd be silly to just remove it. Even if the conspiracy is disproven, this provides a useful source for people trying to discover *why* there was a controversy in the past. Example: some may want ot examine the USAF/Challenger theories, see if they fit in with new material, etc. Krupo 03:38, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Abstain: The problem with reporting conspiracies is that it merely takes an article such as this to create the conspiracies. I know these particular ones were held by many, but this is one of those areas where the paper encyclopedia may have it right: report on lasting conspiracy theories. There were conspiracy theories that the Challenger was blown up by the US Air Force, too, but they didn't last. The quality of the work in this article is exceptional, so it's a question of the category and approach. (I'd vote 'delete' for the approach but 'keep' on this particular one.) Geogre 03:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, legitimate and interesting subject. Everyking 07:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. List on Needy Pages if you think it needs work. Davodd 08:42, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it's an interesting read and a good summary of some of the allegations that are floating around, even if they turn out to have no substance. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 15:27, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; ensure NPOV and no-original-research, however. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There's always the chance there is some little amount of truth in some said in conspiracy speculation and in any case documenting in NPOV fashion is a better way to what is crank than suppressing. People do serious studies about conspiracy theories. And yes, list on Needy Pages jallan 18:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - improve NPOV now that it clearly isn't a conspiracy by some shadow government or organization... - Tεxτurε 22:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. cesarb 22:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Might better be renamed - the "conspiracy theories" tends to justify a dismissal of the material, when in fact the article is reporting the Nick Berg story inconsistencies. I dont know a better way to put it now though. Stevertigo
• delete/rename/merge. There is no space in an encyclopedia for baseless speculation, including conspiracy theories - an encyclopedia is about knowledge. To an encyclopedia, conspiracy stories are only interesting as a social phenomenon, the theories themselves are of no interest. This case is a little more complicated because the article is not as the title suggests - it contains very little conspiracy theory, a lot of relevant and irrelevant facts, and some POV. Get rid of all the speculation, keep the relevant facts (i.e. those that show that the official account of the Nick Berg story does not make sense), and rename as Nick Berg story inconsistencies or merge with the main Nick Berg article.pir 15:59, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we need to think once again, that Wiki is an encyclopedia and not a repository for interesting chatter, at least not in article space. We need some historical perspective. How many people under the age of 40 (or over for that matter) know that the world was not certain of Hitler's death for 23 years after the event? (In 1968 the Soviet released details of what they knew, but onlt in the west). As a result, although most people thought Hitler was dead, there were elaborate theories of where he really was. He had plastic surgery. He was living in Argentina (very popular). He was held captive. And many, many more, many theories a lot better developed than the nit-picking in Nick Berg. Now this might make an interesting article, but should we have it? More important, if we did have it (and Hitler is a hell of a lot more important/interesting subject than Nick Berg) would we allow anything in it that would give the theories credence? In 20 years, will people wonder why Wikipedia could ever allow this POV stuff (and it is POV; a barely concealed attempt to blame the US for yet another thing) in the first place, no less preserve it? -- Cecropia | Talk 17:30, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete/rename/merge. Agree with Pir. Taco Deposit 17:09, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)