Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories

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 merge to Death of Jeffrey Epstein (I've redirected the article, merging can be done from the article history). Having read through the discussion (as well as the discussion at the other AFD, which is ongoing) there's a clear consensus at this time to merge any appropriate content into the Death of Jeffrey Epstein article, which was created on Aug 13, after this AFD started. I note many of the keep votes are prior to this new article being created, and sufficient editors changed their opinion in this AFD as a result to find in favour of merging rather than outright keeping the article as is. Acknowledging the recentness of this event, it seems prudent to remind all involved to observe our not news policy, and the recentism supplementary explanation to NPOV, when deciding what content to merge. I note that the AFD on the merge target is still open for another day, at this time consensus seems in favour of keeping that article, but that's for someone else to decide at the appropriate time. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 02:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Post AFD closure, content has continued to be added. I have redirected to the merge target, any content that should be merged can be done from the last revision. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories (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)

An unnecessary fork of Jeffrey Epstein, where a line or two stating that conspiracy theories exist would suffice. bd2412 T 20:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article details an emerging phenomenon. Plenty of reliable sources are covering the existence of conspiracy theories and, although it is unclear how long they will persist, at the moment it looks sufficiently notable. Consequently, it is too early to make a decision. Philip Cross (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is too early to make a decision, how can it already be sufficiently notable? bd2412 T 20:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's three days later now, and this article still doesn't relay a single conspiracy theory. The emerging notable phenomena from reliable sources are skepticism and baseless accusation, either against a lone suspect or a generic glob of Russians and "rich and powerful". Just an indiscriminate collection of unconnected dots, unless we're discriminating by proximity to Trump. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepOther death conspiracy theory pages exist, such as Princess Diana. That warranted another page and many others, like MLK. It is a very notable topic, even the President of the United States is tweeting about it. Discussion of conspiracies is best kept off his biographical page, as has been done with JFK and RFK. It is mentioned, but only further explored on their corresponding conspiracy theories articles. There is a vast precedent for it, and as more days pass, more information will be published. For those reasons I fully support keeping this article. HAL333 21:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Donald Trump tweeting about something does not make it notable, especially how much he tweets on things. Anyway here the question is not notability per se, but demonstrating that a seperate article is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with OP this is an unnecessary fork. I would add that it has the potential for POV problems as well. There is no reason the reactions to the apparent suicide can't be included in Epstein's bio for now. petrarchan47คุก 21:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death of Jeffery Epstein petrarchan47คุก 17:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but not to the Epstein article, where we are trying to keep this stuff to a minimum. Merge it to List of conspiracy theories, where we have similar material about the Clintons and others. I was going to propose this, but I thought I would wait until the news cycle moves on; then we can trim this and put it where it belongs. Merge it to Death of Jeffrey Epstein now that that article exists and contains a thorough exposition of the subject. The conspiracy theories should be a section at that article rather than a standalone article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is clearly a need for this article. The official narrative of suicide seems to be widely questioned in the media and by politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. People on the right are blaming the Clintons and people on the left are blaming Trump and the Russians. The main Epstein article isn't an appropriate place for all of this information, so a separate article is absolutely necessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There is notability surrounding this topic from a variety of sources. This isn't a one person/one group conspiracy, there are many types from both different sides. Having a completely different article makes sense as it lists all of the possible ones in an appropriate location that doesn't end up cluttering the main page. 216.106.148.248 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a clear need of this article as this article can be kept in a neutral state, (in other words, this isn't a one-sided conspiracy theory). Deleting the article would be a clear bad idea... whose bright idea was it anyway? M.W.B.A.B.Talk to me! 23:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein.Keep and later merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Notable enough for its own article, but now that we also have the other article, that would be a good target for a merge. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The man hasn’t even had an autopsy yet people want to make conspiracy theory articles about his death? Absurdly inappropriate. If a federal investigation finds suspicious activity on his death then include it in HIS article. Fuck’s sake it hasn’t even been 2 days. Trillfendi (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trillfendi, your sense of indignation about the existence of conspiracy theories so soon, helped by Trump jumping right in the thick of it to encourage it, is justified, but that reality has ZERO bearing on the creation of articles here. Do multiple RS discuss the matter? Yes, and that creates enough notability that we have no choice but to deal with it, including writing an article. That articles like this sometimes get incoporated into the main article is another matter. I suspect that doing that would create a due weight problem here, so this is a legitimate WP:SPINOFF sub-article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Trillfendi makes a good point. We have a "conspiracy theory" before any of the official investigations are complete. That's absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it's absurd, but that speaks to why the article is important.--Nowa (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Check out the Template:Conspiracy_theories - this one definitely belongs. It will surely be improved as more is known. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful article, especially as details emerge. If there is room on Wikipedia for articles like this one , then there is room for the article at hand. Don't be in a rush to delete. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are still official investigations ongoing, so there isn't really the basis for a conspiracy theory yet. All we have is off-the-cuff reactions from various people. Any opinion might change when more evidence comes in. It's completely premature to have an article about it. The fingerpointing in all directions also confirms there is no considered theory about the death, and there is no theory how he was murdered. I think if the death becomes a major ongoing issue, we should have a neutral article about the death, not this.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We actually have a great deal more than just "off-the-cuff" reactions. We know he was on suicide watch after being found in his cell with injuries several weeks ago. We also have people close to him that have said he had been attacked and feared for his safety. There are also reports that say guards didn't make their rounds properly to check on him, that video cameras malfunctioned, that he was prematurely taken off suicide watch, and that successfully hanging oneself in a prison cell like the one he was in would have been exceedingly difficult. We also have the President of the United States, Attorney General, and multiple congressmen from both parties that have signaled their skepticism that it was a suicide. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all fine facts, assertions, assumptions and doubts upon which a theory could be built, in theory. But have any taken shape yet? Article currently suggests no. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But the fact that he was on suicide watch, and was taken off, actually supports the contention he committed suicide. Do we have any evidence that supports an assassination?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but this article is about conspiracy theories, not about whether or not a particular explanation of his cause of death makes sense.--Nowa (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to "Death of Jeffrey Epstein", and include both the circumstances of his death and the conspiracy theories. We have many articles on the particular death circumstances of people when these circumstances are notable. In the case of Epstein, there is no doubt that this is the case. --mrincodi
    • That's not a bad idea, but I would suggest that be handled over at WP:REQUESTED MOVES after this AfD has concluded. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support creation of two separate articles; one for conspiracy theories, one for reported suicide. MarvellingLiked (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would merely implement even more forking. If there were an article on Epstein's death, which is not unreasonable, it could reasonably include a few lines on conspiracy theories, but to give them excessive space would lend the undue impression that even the most outlandish of these are serious possibilities. bd2412 T 03:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • bd2412 That doesn't make any logical sense. Under that reasoning, nearly all articles regarding conspiracies should be deleted. These aren't fringe theories by conspiracy nuts either. Nearly all of these theories have some degree of support by Senators, Presidents, and respected journalists.HAL333 03:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The articles that we do have on conspiracies have serious literature that has developed around them. This one has flash-in-the-pan news going off of social media. Obviously a Death of Jeffrey Epstein article could cover them in somewhat greater detail than the main Epstein article, but there is no need to rehash all rumored connections between either the Clintons or the Trumps and Epstein, nor to cite every talking head or minor public official who tweets an opinion. bd2412 T 04:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • bd2412 Usually when things have happened a day ago, there isn't serious literature on it. All new articles based on current events can't cite literature and thus rely on news sources. By your reasoning, Wikipedia articles can't exist until books have been written on the topic. The death happened a day ago, as time passes, stronger sources (and eventually books) will become available for use.HAL333 04:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • We have a policy exactly addressed to this situation: WP:NOTNEWS. bd2412 T 04:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, that does not address the situation whatsoever. Nowhere in WP:NOTNEWS does it say that literature is required for conspiracy articles, which is this "exact situation." Let us further discuss this in the talk page. Thanks HAL333 04:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think this indicates we should have a "Death" article before we have a "Conspiracy theories" article. There isn't yet enough information to have a genuine "conspiracy theory" about the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable enough for an independent article. MarvellingLiked (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage of conspiracy theories isn't unusual and this is a case that has a lot of them, with suitable references to go with them. Spengouli (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly relevant in reinforcing the zealous, hypocritical partisanship of contemporary American politics. Tajiki0013 (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No apparent theories about conspiracy, just implications of contract killings. Could still be a political conspiracy, I suppose. But not civil or criminal. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable subject, due to the large amount of coverage. Objections about the article's title ("No apparent theories about conspiracy") are not grounds for deleting the article. The article could be renamed if that were really necessary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind a new title, only figured the content (or even just the prime cuts) could about as easily be transferred to a whole new article. One that didn't begin by missing the point of its own existence. Salvaging things is great in the non-renewable world, but burning it all and starting fresh is advisable when feasible, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename might be better under the title Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Benjiphillips (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename, especially given the length of the Jeffrey Epstein article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename as Merge to Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Conspiracy angle is well-reported, but starting with this topic is putting the cart before the horse. His death and the conspiracies that followed are becoming too significant a topic to be covered in the main article alone and should be forked per WP:SPINOFF. StonyBrook (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The "Death of" article should be ample to house the conspiracies for now. If a WEIGHT problem ensues at a later time due to an expansion of that topic it can be spunoff at that time. And there isn't enough content on the death alone to keep that one as a standalone article without the conspiracies included. StonyBrook (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename, in light of the public interest relevance of this topic. Whether or not we agree with the conspiracy theories should not be used to argue for or against this page; rather, we should look at it from the simple fact that this topic is most definitely notable enough for a page. However, I would myself prefer to see this page renamed (as said by a few others) to Death of Jeffrey Epstein. The circumstances of his death, whether suicide or not, and whether orchestrated by another party or not, are certainly of notable interest and might be better described by an overall page regarding the death rather than simply the conspiracies. If I am not mistaken, it's usually best to create a page about the death of someone before a page about conspiracies regarding that death. NomadicNom (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This concerns a highly publicized event that is a nigh universal subject of conspiracy theories. Elvis, Hitler and Walt Disney have nothing on this one. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 14:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least some of these theories are notable - mainly because the promoter is the President. Do not rename. Just "Death" is a different subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Death of Jeffrey Epstein, just like we have Death of Michael Jackson and others. Lots of prominent deaths spark conspiracy theories, this one should not be treated differently. Trim the recentist opinion deluge… — JFG talk 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The amazing thing is that with him being dead less than 72 hours we have comments on his death that pre-date that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extensive media coverage and RS shows notability. Compare to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories. Wqwt (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which was written 2 years after Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. StonyBrook (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This page is precisely what makes Wikipedia such a powerful tool. As an epiphenomenon, (which the abounding theories about his death certainly is) these conspiracy theories are no less real than the phenomenon of his death. Speculation, theories, points-of-discussion, etc. can rise to the level of distinct "topics" just as much as singular, touchable events. Having a page about these conspiracy theories is obviously not the same as giving them an imprimatur of "fact." And they are a secondary phenomenon, and shouldn't necessarily share space with Epstein's bio page--at least not yet. That said, I haven't studied Wikipedia's guidelines. CitationPursuer (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep/ No rename Important material for people that want a summary. Be very careful about BLP, however.Nowa (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep = POTUS has pushed, and will almost certainly continue to push, this nonsense. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other conspiracy theory articles exist, such as 9/11 ones. If we degree this one, do we go about deleting the others like it too? —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This shouldn’t even have to be called out but "We should keep it because the president is helping to spread conspiracy theories about his friend on the bird app" is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in months (if you see what goes on around here daily, you know that’s saying something). This is the same person who also spreads lies about his own father’s birth, claimed Ted Cruz’s father killed Kennedy, and that "climate change is a Chinese hoax". That doesn’t give credence to it. This is asinine. What happened to standards? Policy? Reliable sources are negating this. Trillfendi (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about "credence", but notability. Absurdity often contributes to notability, and when someone as notable (infamous) as Trump chimes in, that unfortunately ups the notability of the most absurd things. He scrapes the bottom of the barrel and places things that should be ignored and hidden into the limelight. It's sad, and it's our job to document it. Then there are many others, and many RS which discuss this, so we're easily over the threshold that requires us to cover it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ya can’t convince me that these conspiracy theories became “notable” merely 13 hours after his death was announced. Trillfendi (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily each one, but the subject of conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Epstein, that subject is notable. Notability isn't always dependent on long periods of time. Sometimes it happens fairly fast, depending on the RS, and it is RS, not our ideas of what is reasonable, that are the guideline at Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to point out that the (I agree asinine) things that Trump tweeted that Trillfendi mentioned were all made while he was a candidate. Now he is President of the United States and his tweets are official White House statements/[1] HAL333 19:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The president has lied on record almost 11,000 times as president.... Trillfendi (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every president has lied due to certain things being confidential, but yes, Trump has lied for other reasons. I doubt the 11,000 figure is correct though, as there are several reports of some of his statements being misinterpreted as lies by the mainstream media and other sources. However, blaming Bill Clinton for a pedophile's suicide is likely a falsehood. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 20:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case it is just a Trump retweet.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename maybe Notable enough plus like others said, there are many articles about other notable conspiracies.Antonio Numero 47 Martin (wish me a happy birthday here maybe?) 19:53, 12 August, 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Strong keep for the time being; article is long enough to merit its own page instead of a section on that of Epstein. Potentially revisit this decision in a few months with the benefit of more hindsight and perspective. Porphyro (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Notable death, plus these conspiracies have made several rounds around the Internet. I also believe keeping this article may help prevent said conspiracy theories for being taken as truth. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 20:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell the only notable political figure who has directly weighed in is Trump. The low level person mentioned as "maybe" inplicating Hillary, has a very long minor title, and it is less clear what she was saying. The "cable news commentator" mentioned I believe lacks an article. I guess Giuliani says he is not convinced this was a suicide, but that is not quite the same as a conspitracy theory. The fact that DeSantis who order the investigation before Epstain died was said to have done so in reaction to his death shows that failure of NPOV is leading to failure of accuracy to try to make more things fit into this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - meets notability guidelines, many high-profile figures on both sides of the political spectrum are involved.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with JFG and StonyBrook. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep - dozens of reliable sources, obviously meets the general notability guidelines. I can't think of any good reason why the readers shouldn't have access to information about a subject that many readers are obviously looking for, and - more importantly - that we have reputable, sourced material describing in detail. Obviously the conspiracy theories are exactly that, but that's exactly how the article refers to them.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Epstein is hardly even cold. It is too soon to justify an article on conspiracy theories around his death. If we get worthwhile continuing coverage it might be worth creating one, but right now this is too much reporting of twitter posts on off hand comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with the actual investigation into the apparent suicide not even complete, the autopsy is not complete for example, so I am not sure we even can say this was clearly not a death due to natural causes yet, conspracy theories just do not make sense at this point. Not that a third of the article is about people who spouted conspiracy theories about what caused Epstein to die before he did. I would also point out that there are not "two sides" to this story. There are lots of sides to this story. Don't forget those of us who were always Never Trmup, Never Hillary. We would be inclined to believe that Donald and Bill jointly agreed to knock off Jeffrey before we delieved that one person knocked him off. Also note that there are theories saying it was British interests that knocked him off. I also am thinking a search of wherever Israelis do their twittering would bring up theories that Shimon Peres was involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does nobody ever suspect Toronto or Ottawa in New York shenanigans? Could literally hit the state with a rock from Southern Ontario, without even throwing it sometimes. Wake up, eh! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Barr pushes through an indepth investigation that will not build towards conspiracy theories but kill the winds behind them. I think we should have a balanced article on the death, not an article on conspracy theories. Especially when none of these accusations in any way seem to identify who would have been the real killer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really think that people who believe in the conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein's death will believe the conclusions of the FBI's investigation? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going to say yes if the results are well publicized. After Arquette, Michael Moore and Takei weighed in I have come to the conclusion that fringe nuts are going to push this incident to advance their own agendas no matter what the DOJ, the FBI, the NYPD and anyone else who investigates concludes. Still a flippant tweet by a nut like Moore is not a fully developed conspiracy theory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article indulges in using twitter as sourcing, which is very problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's very problematic. Joe Scarborough has said he was only being "glib" when he made his comment. Trump only retweeted the Clinton conspiracy theory tweet. His spokespeople have said that he wasn't endorsing it. Which notable person actually believes these conspiracy theories?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I guess either the article was not clear enough or I didn't read close enough. Retweeting and starting a tweet are two different things, and Trump doing the former is a lot less significant than the latter. Some people retweet to mock others not endorse them. Off hand remarks need to not be given more coverage then they deserve.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the other hand since #Clintonbodycount trended after Epstein's suicide attempt which closely connected with reveals of the Clinton/Epstein connection, and the huge document dump the day Epstein died, I am not sure that conspiracy theories with Epstein are limited to his death. I think Acosta once said something about how he thought Epstein had "inteligence" connections. There are lots of conspiracy theories about Epstein, including him maybe getting his teaching job from attorney Barr's father that do not directly relate to his death. I have been trying to understand Epstein since Acosta resigned, and have come to realize that far too little is known to understand him. There is a whole set of theories that say he made his money in connection with a 1990s ponzi scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friendly reminder The short form of "conspiracy theory" is "theory", not "conspiracy". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article has some merit outside of the biography, as others others have pointed out, and I am in agreement that the title of the article needs to be addressed. This isn't really a conspiracy that he died, it's more to acquire the facts about his death. Govvy (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep Conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein's death are widely circulated in media outlets and on the Internet, and thus said phenomenon merits documentation per the cited sources, just like the plethora of conspiracy theories surrounding the death of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Scott Shelby (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC) strike sock vote -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep The conspiracy theories are so widely circulated that they are notable, although I would propose either merging it into the article Death of Jeffrey Epstein or merging that article into this one.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for fringe conspiracy theories, whether they are published in reputable sources or not. Most of the theories listed are things that people made up afterwards based on pure speculation. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: This is not what WP:FRINGE says. Should make them seem more notable than they are, but they can still be notable. - Scarpy (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inter&anthro, you've been here long enough to know better. Have you really forgotten why we are here and the job Jimbo gave us? Our job is to document "the sum total of human knowledge,"[2][3] and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage. Human knowledge includes far more than facts. It includes a whole lot of crap like pseudoscience, lies, scams, and conspiracy theories. If they are notable, we must document them or we have failed at our mission. Fortunately, our method of documentation also serves a valuable purpose, because we also provide the truth of the matter, IOW we also end up debunking the nonsense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: Completely disagree, some of these conspiracy theories are very notable. Specifically, the Clinton connection is being pushed by Donald Trump.Kokpep (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't read it because I have already exhausted my NYT use for the month, but here [1] is a New York Times editorial on Epstein and conspiracy theories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: If you read it with AMP, the cookies can’t track you. Trillfendi (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: You can hit the "reader" icon in your browser and it will bypass all ads as well as your limit. petrarchan47คุก 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories, keep Death of Jeffrey Epstein which is also in the process of an AfD. - Scarpy (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jeffrey Epstein. The material is notable but too sparse as yet to require a stand-alone article. If the Epstein article gets too long and there is too much sourced conspiracy material, it could be split out in the future. Edison (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that sub-discussions regarding whether or not to include information about the conspiracies in the Death of Jeffrey Epstein article might be best suited for a separate discussion from this one, perhaps as a standalone merge/rename discussion following the closure of this discussion (It looks increasingly unlikely that a consensus for deletion will emerge any time soon, given how far the keep:delete ratio is from being 50-50, much less leaning in favor of deletion). I think a consensus for Merging/Renaming very well might exist, but many of the !votes don't mention any thoughts on whether or not to pursue this option (as that is not what was being proposed) so it would be much harder to find a clear consensus for it in this thread.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanilla Wizard makes a good point. A non-standard occurrence happened here whereas an appropriate article that can host the conspiracy content (for now), Death of Jeffrey Epstein, was created in the middle of this AfD, prompting me to adjust my vote from Keep to Merge. The "Death of" article was also nominated for deletion, so I voted Keep there for consistency. I don't know what the mechanism would be to re-poll this question under the new reality, but it should be done if possible. StonyBrook (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t based on a popular vote, it’s supposed to be a discussion where ideas are weighed. Trillfendi (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per other notable conspiracy theory articles that exist. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Devalues Wikipedia. Pure speculation. Embarrassing stuff. Don't drag us down. Merge if you have to. JMK (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (selectively, why do we have so much detail:)) to Death of Jeffrey Epstein, no need to have both articles. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein and into main article. Swil999 (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article continues to grow day after day. By merging you would risk mixing up the conspiracies with the facts. The merged article would have to be overly condensed. 2600:1700:B9D0:1990:749A:55AC:F2AC:A12D (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article has stabilized and hovered around 40,000 since a 10-megabyte blast on the afternoon of the twelfth. Still no theories, though. Foster might be close. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All we have are a few tweets, which could be summarised in a couple of sentences.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much of a credibility problem as long as they are kept separate from the general content under a separate heading. On the contrary, the bigger credibility problem is having an entire article of half-baked conspiracy theories so early in the process. If and when these become more defined in the future is when the conspiracy article should be written. StonyBrook (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. I changed my vote to Merge based on your comment. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's worth keeping these views around, at least until more news emerges, to demonstrate the social effect that this event has had. It also maintain's Wikipedia's neutrality by acknowledging differing explanations of events in a context where we don't know how much more information we will get. (This was poor argument on my part.) This page also needs to exist due to the sheer notability of it. If these theories were believed by a very small amount of the population paying attention, then this article would certainly have very little merit to exist. However, with as much attention and reckoning that these conspiracy theories have been receiving, they have become notable. The Amazing Matt (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html
  2. ^ Battles, Matthew (July 12, 2012), Wikipedia and the sum of human knowledge, metaLAB (at) Harvard, retrieved October 22, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ Jerney, John (October 22, 2002), The Wikipedia: The encyclopedia for the rest of us, The Daily Yomiuri, retrieved October 22, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

    Quote: "In particular, the goal of the Wikipedia is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... [It] offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it." — Wikipedia:Testimonials

  • Comnent Somewhere I saw some gibberish about an Epstein body double. I don't think that is a notable theory but there will always be some doubters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Death of Jeffrey Epstein. While citations support mentioning this nonsense, I do not believe it needs it own article with such UNDUE length. The content can be preserved but discussed below the facts of the entire situation. Reywas92Talk 21:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories as both are forks of tightly connected topics. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tons of coverage in reliable sources and this wouldn't be the first death conspiracy theory page. Meatsgains(talk) 01:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Unnecessary to have a separate article for the conspiracy theories, at least at this time, especially given how recent the event is. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein: I've been watching this for the past few days. I'm not sure we have enough proper secondary sourcing, separated both by person and by time, to allow this page to stand on its own, at least for the foreseeable future (a few months, at least). As such, it would be prudent, for now, to merge this; we can always break it apart later if needed. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The conspiracy theories have been substantially covered and are adequately notable for their own article. To merge into the death article (let alone the Epstein article) would make either far too unwieldy. Davey2116 (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment one early complaint about this article may play out now. One issue some of us had is how do you have a conspiracy theory theory discounting the official version of events when there is not yet an official version of events to present as a conspiracy. With the Washington Post running an argument with comments suggesting the autopsy may give results more easily explained by strangulation than self hanging and without an official statement on cause of death and multiple in place investigations, there is not yet an official version of events to be thought a conspiracy and so it is hard to argue a conspiracy theory as opposed to flippant cross accusations can even exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think this is a real possibility. How do we determine what is a "conspiracy theory" in the context that there is no official version of events?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a lot of the "Keep" arguments are invalid. Just because reliable sources have mentioned the claims doesn't mean that we have to have an article. Currently the "theories" are based on a few high profile tweets. Joe Scarborough's tweet was apparently made flippantly, and Trump only retweeted. We don't automatically need to have an article about things like this. There needs to be greater justification. Secondly, purely because we have articles about some conspiracy theories does not mean we need articles about every conspiracy theory. Again, there has to be greater justification.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: The Death of Jeffrey Epstein article was created at 15:07 12 August. !Votes before My very best wishes' comment were cast before that article existed. – Anne drew 13:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My vote would still be "keep". This is a bad practice to create another page on potentially overlapped subject during active AfD. Perhaps merging should be discussed, but this needs to be done on articles talk pages after closing both AfD as keep. However, I would oppose to merging because both pages are already large and I think that facts and conspiracy theories should be kept separately. Yes, they certainly are conspiracy theories, even if he was actually murdered or intentionally let to die in the prison. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein: a) They're not really conspiracy theories until we get an official narrative (as has been noted by User:Johnpacklambert) so speculation prior to such narrative shouldn't be under that heading, b) at the moment it's looking a lot like a POV fork, c) the explosion of speculation is itself notable, enough so that the Death article has its own (redundant) section on the matter. His death and the hubbub surrounding it are notable enough to have their own article, though, so I don't support lumping all of it back into the main article on Jeffrey Epstein himself. Magic9mushroom (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein and wait for the complete "official narrative" to exist as a reference point, per above. ―cobaltcigs 15:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Keep. ―cobaltcigs 00:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Until the cause and circumstances of death are established, we can't draw a firm line between what actually happened vs conspiracism. Note we know who killed JFK and how Diana, Princess of Wales, died and any dissenting opinions can be labelled conspiracism. But we don't know who Jack the Ripper was, so the article on him lists various theories and does not have a separate article for ones we consider to be conspiracy theories. I would point out that at the moment, homicide is a reasonable possibility in Epstein's case, but would be a conspiracy theory if the medical examiner determined he committed suicide and mainstream sources accepted the finding. TFD (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein, noting that early votes to keep were made either before Death of Jeffrey Epstein had been created, or before editors here were aware of it and knew merging was an option. -Darouet (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might makes sense to ping those who weighed in before the "death" article was created; I would have appreciated such a ping, I did change my vote because of the new article. petrarchan47คุก 21:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want both deleted, so Merge would mean the same to me, but count me in. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This is mess because someone created page Death of Jeffrey Epstein during this AfD. Now, I believe the proper course of action is to close both AfDs as "keep" or "no consensus". Then anyone can initiate new discussion to merge these pages, but it should be done separately and after closing the AfDs. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein. this article is an unnecessary fork and is subject to the usual tabloiding media does when something suspicious occurs; even the potus is getting in on it. this level of detail less than a week after the event isn't needed.  Nixinova  T  C  08:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I consider this article a POV pushing that seeks to marginalize those who do not accept the statements from the prison officials at face value, an attack made harder when we consider it is now known the gaurds falsified the logs and were asleep on the job. Here we have USA today quoting Cyril Wecht [[2]] on how the bone breaks in Epstein's neck are not consistent with any hanging he could have done in the cell. Wecht is someone who has at least some expertise in this manner. Considered the medical examiner who did the autopsy made rulings in Eric Garner's death that are questioned, this is not going to be an easy case to move out of dispute. However the medical examiner has not announced the findings of the autopsy at all. At this point not accepting that this was a suicide is hardly to be cast off as a "conspiracy theory". The jury is still out and with the Wall Street Journal running an editorial that basically argued we have a failure of good journalism and no quality reporters covering this story, it is way to soon to seperate it our into "facts" and "conspiracy".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein. --Nowa (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Epstein's body isn't even cold and we're already convinced these conspiracy theories will have lasting historical importance? WanderingWanda (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - Well, it seems rather relevant now, so we should wait and see if it dies out, and if it does, then maybe we can delete it. But if not, and I believe it won't, then we keep it. Calicodragon (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (pinged) Merge, consistent with my prior !vote to "Keep but rename", before the Death article had been created. Good luck with the histmerge… — JFG talk 21:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM The speculation and the coverage about speculation is rampant in the sources provided. Next, this article seems to veer way off topic (WP:OFFTOPIC) by repeating what other notable persons did or did not do before Epstein's death. These actions have no and has relationship to conspiracies surrounding Epstein's death. Nor is coverage of these persons related to Epstein's death. These are WP:BLP violations - using this platform to smear notable persons based on speculative information. There are only a few theories related to Epstein's death at present, and nothing conclusive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge changing my Ivote per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM and in agreement with other participants. It seems only the last section is worth merging because the coverage of other people in this article is unrelated to this topic. And, that coverage is based on speculation. Hopefully, by the time this AfD is over, we will have more answers. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2019 (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/Jeffrey_Epstein_death_conspiracy_theories&oldid=1137946617"