Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conspiracy theories

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Conspiracy theories. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Conspiracy theories|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Conspiracy theories. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conspiracy theories/archive

Specific notes about conspiracy theory AfDs

• An inactive page that is similar to this exists at User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. That page is inactive, but is kept for historical purposes.
• To avoid strife, remember that the first sentence of Conspiracy theory defines the term as follows

"A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations."

Jeanette Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE following a message on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Looking through the sources, I just don't see the high quality we'd want for a BLP, with many sited to single news pieces. For a BLP with strong claims, I'd want to be able to resource from multiple news pieces, with no possibility of needing to rely heavily on a small number as this article does. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This has been to BLPN three times:

1. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive298#Jeanette_Wilson (February 7, 2020)—raised by article's subject; brief discussion, including generally refuting a concern about sourcing
2. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive299#Jeanette_Wilson (February 24, 2020)—raised by article's subject; specific analysis of individual sources, finding many to be RS, including several in-depth, and some claim of notability, but that some of the article needed rewriting to correspond more closely to what the sources specifically support
3. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeanette_Wilson (April 24, 2025)—raised by article's subject; the request that triggered this AFD

I have no idea if the article-editing discussed in #2 actually happened. DMacks (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Conspiracy theories, Paranormal, Spirituality, COVID-19, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources 11 and 16 are listed as RS. I also see coverage here [1], [2], would seem to have enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm leaning delete as most of the sources are from a one year window (June 2019 to July 2020) acknowledging that a group of skeptics wanted to call attention to the subject. If kept the article should be written with WP:NPOV and condensed removing opinion pieces as sources of information, which I will add to my list WP:NOTADVOCACY. Nnev66 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article currently has 17 references of varying quality but the best of them are certainly adequate to establish notability. If there are actually factual errors as claimed at WP:BLPN, then the solution is to correct or remove that specific content. As for the dates of the references, they range from 2013 to 2023, and I do not see a clustering in one year to be a problem requiring deletion. I see the subject's request at BLPN as a form of reputation management and marketing her "services" would be easier for her if this article did not exist. Wikipedia: Fringe theories#Treatment of living persons should be our guiding light. The article should stay. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goebbels gap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NEO which does not have any significant sourcing. The one source is a blog, and doesn't even give significant coverage to the term. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - found exactly zero results in google books, google scholar, google/bing news, or newspapers.com. No regular google results either if you discount ones mentioning the creator of the neologism. Zzz plant (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Discrimination, and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete did not find any sigcov in reliable sources on a search Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Seems to be one author's coinage that never took off. Yue🌙 07:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The "coiner," Yair Rosenberg, is a staff writer at the Altantic and the author of books that pass the Notability guidelines. He's been featured in WaPo, The Guardian, and others. He's also been on Bill Maher, the Daily Show, and CNN, and has apparently testified before the House Foreign Affairs committee. Here This does by no means deserve its own page, but I propose this is merged and turned into one sentence on Yair Rosenberg's Wikipedia page.
• Delete non-notable adaje. Azuredivay (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Yair Rosenberg as WP:ATD. There's some coverage, but not enough for a WP:STANDALONE [3] [4]. Longhornsg (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge is fine by me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, see my unsigned merge rec above (sorry abt that) AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is already one sentence in Yair Rosenberg which adequately covers it. Zero^talk 02:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Insurrectionist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Improperly sourced WP:BLP cited largely to tweets. The basis to notability here is two conspiracies propagated by this person, which were then debunked. This material does not prove notability for the person especially for the higher standards on a BLP. There is almost no material here about the topic it claims to be about (the person), and barring a single source (AP which is fine) the sources do not contain sigcov about him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources are about the conspiracies, not about the account creating them. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]