Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEC-Marconi scientist deaths conspiracy theory

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The result was withdrawn. Verbal chat 06:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GEC-Marconi scientist deaths conspiracy theory[edit]

Contested prod. Reason for prod was:
Soapbox for blatant conspiracy theory. A library and web search indicates that this topic is almost entirely ignored except for conspiracy theory websites and forums. The sources cited in the article are also suspect. I have been unable to find any of the AP articles in archive searches and the Guardian article is not found in their archive search. The single book cited is carried by no library in the United States, United Kingdom or Canada (according to catelogue searches such as WorldCat). This article seems to serve no purpose but the advancement of a far afield theory completed ignored outside of conspiracy theory circles (and not even documented in common conspiracy print sources).

I agree with this. The sources are either poor or unobtainable, with the main sources being a Hustler article and an apparently self-published book, and unavailable newspaper articles. Notability is far from established for this conspiracy theory. Verbal chat 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination Hopefully these new sources can be added and the article improved. (Can someone tell me how to properly withdraw this, or is this enough?) Verbal chat 21:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When I contested the prod, I pointed out that 45 libraries held the book according to WorldCat. Apparently there was some error. That's not to say it is a major book. 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are a variety of sources dealing with these deaths. The topic was actually pretty big news in the UK at the time and anyone old enough will probably remember it well. All major newspapers will have covered it as well as TV and radio. First three sources below are from UK Hansard. That in itself is pretty notable.

Independent article here[6]

[7]

New Scientist[8]

HPBriegel (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if these could be added too the article. Verbal chat 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is a conspiracy theory and could use better sourcing, I feel it is a notable conspiracy theory. It certainly got a fair amount of press at the time as shown by the newpaper articles listed. Edward321 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claims of nonexistence of sources are unfounded. An AP story runs under different headlines in different newspapers, so one from 1987 may be hard to track down. A Keep !vote does not mean that I think SMERSH was assassinating the scientists, just that there was much discussion in the mainstream press of the unusual cluster of mysterious deaths. A Google News Archive search for the name "Vimal Dajibhai" produced 8 articles from 1987-88 [9] (pay per view) which call the deaths of multiple defense scientists a "mystery" or which say Britons "demand a probe" of multiple deaths linked to the "secret defense research." These are in U.S. papers, showing the longstanding international interest in the multiple deaths. The name "Avtar Singh Gida" [10] shows up in four of these same articles. "John Brittan" and Russell Smith" show up in "A BODY ADDS TO A BRITISH MYSTERY" in a U.S. paper in 1988 [11]. "Peter Peapell" shows up [12] in U.S. papers in 1987-88 in "A FIFTH DEFENSE SCIENTIST DIES MYSTERIOUSLY IN BRITAIN," "A BRITISH MYSTERY: 4 DEFENSE SCIENTISTS DEAD AND 1 MISSING," and "INQUIRY SOUGHT AFTER EIGHTH BRITISH SCIENTIST IS FOUND DEAD, " an AP story March 27, 1988, printed in the Dallas Morning News, which said a UK lawmaker called for an inquiry after Terry Knight was found dead in a car from exhaust fumes, and that he was the 8th British scientist involved in defense work who died under mysterious circumstances since Augusr 1986, and that 5 of them worked for Marconi [13]. These all go beyond reporting a suspicious death to discussing a "mystery" and link a number of deaths together. The article needds some research in a library to track down non-online and non-free sources, but there was clearly worldwide interest in a cluster of deaths not from natural causes of a number of British defence scientists in the 1980s. This shows the topic is not just original research or synthesis on the part of article creators, and shows that the suspected linkage of a number of deaths had notability. A task for editors is to pare away the inevitable add-ons of later deaths which were not linked to the 1986-88 cluster by reliable sources such as the newspapers I cited. Edison (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book might be vanity-published, but 10 articles (and likely TV coverage) establish notability, and I see no reason not to believe Edward321 when he says that most Britons alive at the time would remember this. We keep many articles which have less mainstream press coverage. I expect we might see arguments similar to IDONTLIKEIT ("fringe conspiracy theory"), which should be avoided if possible. Also, the recent move to a title including conspiracy theory is questionable if the sources don't say conspiracy theory, although obviously it is a conspiracy theory. II | (t - c) 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn Verbal chat 21:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Probably crazy lunacy as an explanation of no more than coincidence, but the history and perception of these deaths as being a conspiracy was highly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recall when this was making the wire service rounds back in the late 80s, and the sources are mentioned. Whether it was a "conspiracy" or not, it was a rather unusual number of deaths in a short span of time in a particular group of people. Mandsford (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2008 (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.