Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina[edit]

WP:FRINGE, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE. Smite it. [ roux ] [x] 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is precisely by grouping all of the "conspiracy" and "supernatural" type theories together that this article avoids lending the appearance of credence to them, which is the concern of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The article is clearly NPOV, as it does not put forward any point of view at all, but merely accurately reports the assertions of a variety of often quite notable figures. bd2412 T 17:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh.. I meant in the sense that having the article at all is lending undue prominence. [ roux ] [x] 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on undue prominence uses the example of not giving much discussion to the "flat Earth" theory in the article on the Earth - but we still have a Flat Earth article. bd2412 T 02:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The flat earth article is not dedicated to listing arguments for the Flat Earth theory. It's primary focus is the culture and history surrounding numerous flat earth beliefs, as opposed to details dupporting the actual theory. There's no bias there, because it is a topic, whereas "Alternative theories..." are arguments for a single POV. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As article shows, various persistant rumors, theories, and common misconceptions have gotten considerable media attention. Article provides some context, analysis, and in some appropriate instances debunking. Room for improvement, but a useful article. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:N and WP:RS. I see no issues with the cited policies and guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't advance any of the points, and it's fairly well sourced. I see no problems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bd2412. Grouping them like this is exactly how to handle them and stay neutral about content. These theories have been discussed seriously by plenty of ~~insane~~ people, so they are notable if only because of the amount of wp:RS press they received. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While I don't agree entirely with the nomination, this article is definetly too consolidated on a single Bias and doesn't serve to separate points of view, only to group them together as independent from the actual topic. Given that most of the article is highly synthesized... listing numerous quotes, with no flow between areas and providing only a small amount of actual content that would be best split among the parent article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into what? Hurricane Katrina is 115 KB as is. bd2412 T 02:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Well, the most obvious place would be the article... as there is very little salvagable encylopedic content on this page, after the listings of opinions and quotes are ripped out. To satisfy that option, if one tiny section really is too large for you, then remove yet another, more coherent section, that has no Bias from the primary into it's own. The other option is to Merge this article with the content of the opposite bias, "Accepted Theories..." in a complete new article that isn't naturally POV. Having an article dedicated to one half of a Minor Topic is unacceptable. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Viability of this article was confirmed the moment I saw sources such as Houston Chronicle and Time Magazine. 23skidoo (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point... it's fortunate we don't have any policies like (for example only) WP:SYNTH where you might have to consider more than just the URL of the references before coming to a decision. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Probably better to keep it, as it does satisfy WP:N and the NPOV problems are not severe enough to smite it. The article should be renamed to something more encyclopedic, but I don't have a better idea than the current title. Wronkiew (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been renamed twice in the past to get where it is now. It was originally "Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina", and then "Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories". The current title is at least better than either of those. bd2412 T 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.