Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus is that this is a non-notable fringe topic.  Sandstein  10:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor[edit]

Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:PROFRINGE. I am not suggesting that the article's author intended to promote this fringe theory. Rather, this article should be deleted because it is supported only by sources which contain non-verifiable original thought. WP:BLP may very well come into play, as well. Brianga (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with your reasoning 100%. Carbrera (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Bordering on defamatory, with no verifiable content. Ethanlu121 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What, specifically, is not verifiable Ethanlu121? The Washington Post saying that the conspiracy theorists used a looped video to create this meme? That's not verifiable? The Daily Beast saying this meme originated from the notorious conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson? That's not verifiable? Snopes debunking the conspiracy theory? That's not verifiable? Did you actually read the article? LavaBaron (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brianga with all due respect, did you read the article? The article is sourced to references which verifiably debunk "non-verifiable original thought", specifically The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, Snopes, Media Matters, etc. It passes GNG as it is a bizarre conspiracy theory that has received widespread coverage. This is an important article as it collates the rational response and verifiable facts presented by RS that debunks a weird meme propogated by chat rooms, blogs, and notorious conspiracists like PJW in one place. It is as vital to the propagation of logic and reason as our other debunking articles like 9/11 conspiracy theories, Illuminati, and Climate change denial. I can't imagine why anyone would AfD this unless they didn't want the facts that undermine and debunk this expanding and outrageous conspiracy theory to be easily available. LavaBaron (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: LavaBaron (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
As for your references argument, I disagree. The fact that the fringe theory is discussed on Snopes or even the Washington Post doesn't change that the underlying ideas are original thought and non-verifiable. As for the remainder of your argument, it seems like you are saying that Wikipedia should be used to debunk or propagate certain ideas; for that, I refer you to WP:SOAP.Brianga (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I believe you are incorrect. The mere fact that non-verifiable thought exists is not excludable from WP if it is the source of widespread coverage in RS which covers the existence of the thought rather than the thought itself. See Majestic 12 or any other conspiracy theory as non-verifiable and bizarre as this distasteful allegation; the fact is, it's become part of the cultural milieux. That may be a sad and depressing testament on society, but it's a fact as the article establishes. Also, please sign your posts. LavaBaron (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A rumor created as part of a political campaign is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because a few reliable sites have debunked it. This is in the same vein as speculation that another candidate had small anatomical parts. Wikipedia was quick to punish an admin who made humorous reference to a candidate's hand size. This is even a more serious WP:BLP violation and should be speedily deleted. Edison (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edison if you want to support Delete, that's fine; if you want to speedily delete it, okay. But please don't chill the conversation by alluding to some forthcoming "punishment" I may suffer. Instead, let's have a vibrant and mutually respectful debate on the issue in which we exchange ideas, trade opinions, contemplate each others viewpoints, and arrive at individual conclusions that we accept may differ from those of our fellow editors. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my post carefully. I pointed out that the community took very seriously a previous humorous mention of an allegation from a candidate's debate forum. There was no tolerance shown of a BLP violation just because the victim was a political candidate.There is no statement, prediction or inference that you or others will be punished. I only called for a vicious BLP violation to be removed. Edison (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a "vicious" article? Got it. So much for a mutually respectful dialog. Guess we're going full radioactive. (And how anyone could even think an article which is essentially an index of facts that debunk a vicious rumor is, itself, "vicious" is utterly beyond me. Going into this I thought there was a chance I'd be accused of being a Clinton apologist; the idea someone would think this was a Clinton attack article is really throwing me for a loop.) Off-topic, but there's been such a frustrating trend here lately with editors coming in and immediately unsheathing their battle axes to start swinging instead of taking a couple deep breaths, having a cold glass of water, and sitting down for a discussion. LavaBaron (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have twice attributed to me things I did not write. Stop it. I did not call it a vicious article as you claim. I said it was a vicious rumor. Again, please read posts carefully before you reply to them. Do not create strawmen. Edison (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of reading posts carefully - you said (quoting verbatim) it was "a vicious BLP violation" not a "vicious rumor" [1]. In fact, not once did you use the phrase "vicious rumor" prior to your last reply in which you claim you did; you did, however, describe my article as a "serious BLP violation" and "vicious BLP violation" [2][3] which leaves very little ambiguity as to what you are referring as the term "BLP violation" only exists on WP and unambiguously refers to a WP article.
But I AGF you misspoke and meant "vicious rumor", not "vicious BLP violation", so no harm done now that that's clarified. Thank you for taking the time to respond. LavaBaron (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The unfounded claim that a presidential candidate (or anyone else) has brain damage is itself a vicious BLP violation, and has no place in any in Wikipedia. At WP:BLP it is clear that "BLP violation" can include content in an article, as opposed to the entire article as you state, when it says "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection...." which would prevent some statement being re-added to an article, but would leave the article. Edison (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't say "vicious rumor" then? LavaBaron (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - If consensus is for delete, please word the explanatory note cautiously so someone viewing the deletion record doesn't come to the conclusion this was an article propagating or advancing this conspiracy theory. If the text is eviscerated and only a record of the title is left, I can see this coming back to bite me down the road. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a fine line between creating an article that engages in speculation and an article that reports on the practice of a specific form of speculation, provided that the practice has received significant coverage in reliable sources. I think this is a fairly close call in this case, but on balance, I think this article functions more as restatement of the conspiracy theories than a description of history, prevalence, impact, and significance of such theories. To the extent that these rumors are noteworthy, I think readers would be best served if a brief summary of the rumors were included at the article for Hillary Clinton (per WP:PAGEDECIDE), which already includes a discussion of her health and explains that "her doctors subsequently said she made a full recovery" from the 2012 hospitalization. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great points, Notecardforfree. Thanks for such a thorough analysis. LavaBaron (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, LavaBaron. I also want to add for the record that I certainly don't think this article was created in bad faith or as an attack on Hillary Clinton -- Lava Baron has done a fine job to expand our coverage of issues relating to politics and government, and I believe this was a good faith attempt to write an article about an issue that has appeared in the mainstream media. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I indicated the same in my nomination. Brianga (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While nutty and baseless conspiracy theories can under certain circumstances be sufficiently notable for an article, this is not one of them; the conspiracy nonsense has not achieved significant, in-depth third-party coverage. I acknowledge that LavaBaron, the creator of this article, was attempting to describe the theory, not to promote it, and was acting in good faith. But frankly—I say this only half-facetiously— if we devoted an entire article to every crazy right-wing conspiracy theory about the Clintons, we would have server space for little else. Perhaps this claim (and the various debunkings) merits a mention in the biographical articles of those people who propagated this nonsense. Neutralitytalk 21:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:PROFRINGE. Also fails WP:GNG. What we would need for GNG are more reliable sources about the subject (the subject behind all the examples, not a coatrack of specific accusations/rebuttals). There are a couple, but not enough when compounded with WP:PROFRINGE (and, to a lesser extent, WP:BLPGOSSIP). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unquestionably PROFRINGE. Not enough independent coverage. This one is less than a week old, per Neutrality, this stuff is not enough for a standalone article. Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Fails WP:PROFRINGE and, possibly, WP:GNG. If Wikipedia covered every conspiracy theory that emerged, it would fill up pretty quickly. This theory is very clearly designed to undermine Mrs Clinton's campaign for the Presidency, and Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to manipulate voters, especially in cases such as this where there is virtually no evidence. If more concrete evidence emerged (e.g. an expert opinion from Clinton's doctor), then I would suggest inclusion on Clinton's own article. It isn't worthy of its own article. Specto73 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. WP should not be a tool to manipulate the public. It should be a tool to inform the public and that's what this article does - it collates all of the factual claims that debunk these ridiculous rumors into one concise, easily accessible place. With the help of WP's reach, this article had the potential to slow the spread of ignorance. Within a week or two, people googling Clinton + Brain Damage would have landed here, where they would see these claims countered with facts from RS like the WaPo and Daily Beast. Instead, once it's deleted, they'll be landing on the Alex Jones website where they'll get pounded with uncontested conspiracy clap-trap. You've done great work on WP, Specto73, but I'd ask you reconsider your !vote. I know you mean well but by hitting delete the only people you're helping are Alex Jones, Frank Gaffney, and Dylan Howard; they'd like nothing more than resources like this swept under the rug. LavaBaron (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you still seem to think that Wikipedia should be a soapbox (or a counter-soapbox?) rather than an encyclopedia. Brianga (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, evisceration of ignorance and the democratization of knowledge are normative goals of the Wikipedia project; spreading opinion constitutes "advocacy" as defined in WP:SOAPBOX, spreading knowledge does not. If I were calling for the maintenance of an article that rebuts criticism of Clinton's policy positions, that would be WP:SOAPBOX. However, maintaining an article that provides the scientific rational consensus regarding a popular, false conspiracy theory is not advocacy, it is knowledge dissemination - the very purpose of WP. LavaBaron (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • S̶t̶r̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶K̶e̶e̶p̶ This clearly passes WP:PROFRINGE since "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents" has been met by sources to Washington Post, Daily Beast, Media Matters, and Fox. It is a notable, long running conspiracy theory that is well sourced and discussed outside of its original conspiratorial sources. However, it probably needs a title change from something like 'rumor' to 'hoax'.--DrCruse (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - thanks for making the page name change. LavaBaron (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm revising my strong keep to Merge with Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016. I still think it's notable and passes WP:PROFRINGE but it is not important enough to have its own article. --DrCruse (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per WP:PROFRINGE, that's exactly how it becomes notable. LavaBaron (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Passes WP:PROFRINGE, no doubt. It is credible enough for WaPo and others to feel the need to dismiss it. Frankly, if this were a Donald Trump rumor, not only the media but also Wikipedia would pounce on it. Every vote would be "keep." I know it. 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • BS. There's an (unsubstantiated) lawsuit that Trump raped a 13-year-old girl, but Wikipedia doesn't have an article about that, anon. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I spent weeks working on the AfD for Boyd Bushman which was a WP:PROFRINGE deletion and we had to scrape and claw due to the fact it was getting airtime on Coast to Coast AM so every nutter in America was coming to the article. THAT was fringe. This is not. Some people here are mistaken as to what WP:PROFRINGE covers. PROFRINGE is not a proscription on fringe, weird, or bizarre ideas; PROFRINGE is a proscription on fringe ideas that can only be sourced to fringe sources. This is a fringe idea that has been elevated to the point of national discussion through coverage in the mainstream media. The fact it's a hoax is totally irrelevant - we have all sorts of articles on hoaxes like Żydokomuna, Balloon boy hoax, Stab-in-the-back myth, and a thousand others. BlueSalix (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Each little made-up attack on a political figure is not a notable topic or one appropriate for an encyclopedia, even if summarily debunked by reliable sources. This is no more than a standard fringe theory during an election that happened to be addressed in the WP:NOTNEWS, and utter nonsense claims made by the ilk of InfoWars and the National Enquirer do not warrant an article. Reywas92Talk 22:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I feel like you needed to stop to take a breath halfway through that! j/k LavaBaron (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There will be other attacks on the presidential candidates as the election approaches, and this is a good time to alert contributors that made-up stuff to feed the 24×7 news cycle should not be amplified into an encyclopedic article unless secondary sources comment on significant outcomes. If Clinton loses the election and secondary sources attribute part of the loss to this hoax, the article can be re-created, but at the moment it is just a celebration of pure fringe nonsense. Would LavaBaron please stop biting the ankles of contributors to this AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom.--Jorm (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comments on this discussion seem to be in the direction that not only should this not be a stand-alone article, but that this is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. So why would it be okay for it to be pasted to Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016? This seems like an inappropriate way to get around an AFD and should not require a second discussion on the content. Reywas92Talk 06:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_plant_theory <--- Why isn't that up for deletion? Bias. 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nomination.... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Johnuniq as "pure fringe nonsense". An entire article filled with weasel words like "alleged", "suggested" and "insinuated" has no encyclopedic value. There's a conclusion from a physician who has never even examined Clinton, but yet his quote in the article is not identified as being speculation. The WaPo ref is not quoted accurately, our article says - In most of the cases scrutinized - which implies that some cases are legit, when actually The WaPo stated - In every case, a Clinton moment that had been captured by the media was reinterpreted and wrenched out of context. I also share Reywas92's concern about Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016, an article which now has this identical content and was created 3 days after this one was nominated for deletion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Passes WP:PROFRINGE. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 17:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marge/redirect to Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016. As I read PROFRINGE discussion of the fringe idea in reliable sources is enough to support having an article. So on that basis the right outcome is an easy keep. However, I believe that editorially we are best served by placing it in the context of other, related, conspiracy theories. Thus the merge !vote. Given there is already a lot there, a pure redirect is probably fine, but I'd prefer not to see the underlying article deleted. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is a reference site, not a place for unsubstantiated and disingenuous opinions. Whether one agrees with the contents or not, this post's existence, in and of itself, devalues Wkipedia's entire site and all of its contents. If Wikipedia goes down this road, they will be relegated to a banal comment section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.195.231 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Hobit. It is debunked in enough RS that PROFRINGE says it should be kept: Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable. But encyclopedically it is useful to put it in the context of other glorious examples of contemporary American post-truth politics, so redirect it and merge the material. FourViolas (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hillary_Clinton_brain_damage_rumor&oldid=1083686819"