Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence

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 delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence[edit]

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

Per a RfD here, the effective deletion of this article should be resolved at AfD. The reason for proposed deletion or redirect of this article is that any discussion of the topic long enough to even form a stub would be a WP:POVFORK of Assassination of John F. Kennedy. As written, this article is clearly not neutral - relying solely on a single conspiracy theorist's analysis to draw the conclusion (stated as fact in the article) that Oswald did not fire a rifle. Rewritten neutrally, there is effectively no article as all as @Canada Jack: mentions here. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Conspiratorial nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK of Assassination of John F. Kennedy. -- 101.119.14.208 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Yes, it looks like a POV fork based on a single source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN fringe theory. It is not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every JFK assassination conspiracy theory can be covered effectively within the JFK assassination conspiracy theories article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion policy WP:ATD says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And, "Consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead". In the RfD of this article, a consensus was found that this article is not a WP:POVFORK, therefore this article was restored. In that RfD there was also a consensus that this article had a WP:POV issue and a consensus was found on solving these issues by making amendments to the text (I agreed to CanadaJack's proposal of explicitely attributing certain sentences to their author). Therefore VQuakr created this AfD in violation of WP:ATD, because he created this AfD before he, myself or anyone else made any changes to this article. VQuakr also tried to delete this article via WP:D-R before, which was rejected. I just recently made changes [1 ] in the article according to the consensus on the POV issue. The article does not "rely solely on one source" and it also does not rely on a "conspiracy theorist" which is obviously used in a pejorative way against historian Gerald McKnight, whose "Breach of Trust is the leading study of the Warren Commission"[1]. The "conspiracy theory" claim is also invalid because no theory about a conspiracy for the JFK homicide is mentioned in the article. The article does not represent a fringe theory, because all reliable sources on the NAA performed on the assassination evidence share the same conclusion with the exception of John Gallagher, who is no expert on the subject (but whose opinion is now also included in the article). The article is also no fringe theory because the conclusions mentioned (on whether Oswald shot JFK or not) are only one part of the bigger whole of the article. The article also is no fringe theory because now also the conclusion of John Gallagher which builds the Warren Commission Report's view is included in the article. The argument not even wrong is invalid because the text of the article entirely consists of reliable sources in natural science, history and criminal justice. The article can not be covered effectively in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories article because it is not about a conspiracy or a theory but instead on the AEC's investigation of JFK assassination evidence.Icarus4 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of your statement is just contradiction I will not extend this AfD by addressing it. However, I do wish to point out the outright falshood above, "In the RfD of this article, a consensus was found that this article is not a WP:POVFORK, therefore this article was restored." The actual RfD closure stated the following: "The result of the discussion was article restored. VQuakr essentially tried a WP:D-R here, but D-R is BOLD, and there's consensus to revert it. No prejudice against AfD, a merge proposal, or similar actions." No conclusion whatsoever was drawn about its status as a fork. VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect because of three reasons: First, it is not necessary to repeat all consensual topics in the closure summary of a RfD (in the e.g.: the POV issue). Second, your argument for your attempted WP:D-R was [[1]] WP:POVFORK and there was consensus to revert your attempt which means consensus was found to reject your argument of POVFORK. Third, the consensus to reject the argument of POVFORK was explicitely stated in the discussion. I repeat here the consensus from the RfD on why this article is not a POVFORK: "The article is not a WP:POVFORK because it is not a fork. But some of its content is disputed for its representation (attribution of quotes to their author)." And "The target article contains no information from the redirected article. This information is also not contained anywhere else on Wikipedia." Regarding one of VQuakr's arguments from his opening posting: This article is much longer than a WP:STUB (an article containing only one or a few sentences of text). Icarus4 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Icarus' claims notwithstanding, this is essentially the opinion of a single author, who is a well-known conspiracy theorist, and hence does not warrant its own page. And, yes, he is a "CT" because he concludes, using his opinion as fact, that the FBI and Warren Commission deliberately covered up these tests as they "knew" the tests "proved" Oswald was not the assassin. Indeed, this POV article dismisses one objection to the conclusion that Oswald did not fire a rifle by describing this person as someone "with no expertise" while citing the opinion of McKnight who, as a historian, has even less expertise yet McKnight's opinion is in the lede with no explanation as to how a historian is more an expert than a ballistics professional! Further, the most obvious and fundamental objection to these tests - Oswald's original paraffin sample was handled, altered and had contamination and is therefore useless in terms of gaining ANY definitive conclusions - is utterly buried in the article with a quick rejoinder. If this was NOT a POV article, the lede would include something along the lines of "the utility of the tests has been questioned owing to the contamination and handling of Oswald's paraffin sample." As previously stated, a brief mention could be made on the rifle page to these tests saying that some see it as indicating Oswald did not fire a shot, and/or placed on the conspiracy page with a similar note. Canada Jack (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All these arguments are irrelevant for an AfD. I will only address the most important reasons why. Your argument, "this is essentially the opinion of a single author", even if it were right, would be irrelevant for an AfD. For a lack of diversity of sources, the "one source" template is already used, and also the "expert-subject" template could be used. Fortunately there are several other sources available, but unfortunately I don't have access to all their works, therefore I invite all editors with access to those sources to contribute to the article. Your argument, "an author, who is a well-known conspiracy theorist" is also irrelevant for an AfD, because it is an argumentum ad hominem which is an informal fallacy. This argument of yours is also a personal attack against the independent, third-party, reliable source Gerald D. McKnight, because it is used as a pejorative aiming to debase his work. This argument of yours would also be irrelevant even if McKnight were what some call a "conspiracy theorist", because he would still be an independent, third-party, reliable source (see above: argumentum ad hominem). Your argument, "this POV article [...]" is irrelevant for this AfD, because for the WP:POV issue there is already the "POV" template is use. All those of your arguments that I won't contradict here shall be discussed in the article's Talk page chapter "POV issue". I already answered there. Icarus4 (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. The page should be kept, but re-written, so that McKnight's conclusions are clearly marked as his conclusions. It is not a conspiracy theory that the AEC tested the paraffin casts, and that its results suggested Oswald did not fire a rifle. This has been discussed in Harold Weisberg's Post Mortem, David Wrone's The Zapruder Film, Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust, and Don Thomas' Hear No Evil. The most complete discussion, by far, however, is on my website, patspeer.com, in the chapter Casts of Contention. It can be found here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention Now, to address one of the problems mentioned by those wanting to kill the page---that there is no alternative voice offered--well, the reason for this is, in part, that those claiming Oswald acted alone have never dealt with this issue, except by pretending it didn't exist. My 7-24-07 post on the Reclaiming History blog (http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/) discusses Vincent Bugliosi's incredibly flawed treatment of this issue in his book Reclaiming History. In closing, then, let me state that it would be a travesty to delete this page because it suggests a possible conspiracy simply because those claiming there was no conspiracy have never dealt with this issue, and refuse to deal with this issue, decades after Weisberg first discussed it, and 6 years after I first posted the results of the NAA tests online. FWIW, should the page be allowed to stay, I will help re-write it so that the conclusions contained within are clearly marked.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patspeer (talk • contribs)

Welcome, and thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest. Please note that your website is not a reliable source. VQuakr (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.