Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Bold NAC close, with a bit of IAR as to timing. This discussion has been overtaken by events, and given front-page coverage in major national newspapers, it's hard to credibly argue there isn't a plausible case for notability. Just how this should be covered may need further discussion, but the nominator and a large share of the delete !votes are withdrawn, and the basic consensus is inevitable. Most of what might yet be said here would be more productively said in a discussion of coverage directly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)[edit]

Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Significant WP:BLP issues regarding giving credence to WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory. As suggested at WP:BLPN, could use a brief mention as a one-line somewhere that this is debunked and false. Other than that, does not need its own page which is defamatory to living people. Sagecandor (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew nomination after new development see The Washington Post and NBC News 4 Washington, see "Keep" below. Sagecandor (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect As others have said this would never make it to mainspace due to WP:FRINGE issues among other things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment about redirecting below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out how the current form of the draft deviates from mainstream reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on recent developments. This would actually qualify for WP:SKCRIT #1. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't qualify for WP:SKCRIT #1, as it stipulates "and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected". -- Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Creating a mainspace page to give space to an entirely unfounded, false, viciously defamatory and wholly fabricated series of claims about living people is a really, really bad precedent that we should not set here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EASYTARGET. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly and appallingly, I think I need to withdraw my vote - after what happened with the gunman, this is almost certainly long-term encyclopedic and we need to be a source which clearly rejects and debunks this lunacy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above - especially WP:BLP - the creator is free to post this on their facebook page but it has no business being on WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 17:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out BLP violations in the current form of the draft. Dismissed claims about living persons which are presented as false and sourced to mainstream journalistic sources that debunk those claims are not BLP violations. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERNOM. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Essays are not policy. In any case, I see no point in belaboring this quite obvious points which others have made, and with which I agree. Neutralitytalk 00:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most current version clearly marks it as a false conspiracy theory. I believe Ian Thomson on ANI thinks it passes the GNG. At which point do we determine the difference between "well sourced fringe nonsense" and "fringe nonsense"? The problem is, of course, that so much of this crap gets thrown out there and talked about (yesterday it was three million illegal votes, and last year it was Ted Cruz's father killing JFK or nonsense like that) that most of these nonsensical things can be sourced (and debunked). Personally I think that this is basically NOTNEWS, but I'd love to hear a concise and strong BLP argument. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, Drmies. To me the biggest issue pushing toward straight-up "Delete" is the fact that any standalone article will instantly become a permanent honeypot for conspiracy theorists, and that there will be endless, sometimes-civil, off-wiki-organized pressure to expand the article, to add "balance," to add the endless purported details, etc., and experienced editors will have to endlessly stand firm against that pressure. The claims about living people are about as defamatory as they get and thus the article will require permanent, frequent monitoring to prevent misuse and abuse. It's not even in articlespace yet and there's had to be multiple rev-delete actions taken. We've seen this play before and we know how it ends. The encyclopedia doesn't need another one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely, at least with the first part, and I'm sympathetic to the second part. But that second part is, unfortunately, a bit of crystal ballery, though that ball may be as accurate as one of the Palantir. Hence I would go with NOTNEWS, pace Knowledgekid below: we are making a big, not to mention yuge, mistake if we accept something because it was in the papers, the day before the fish got wrapped in it. Between you and me, Wikipedia needs to purge itself of a slew of those and related articles, frequently written by editors who can't wait to run to the PC after they checked their Twitter feed or their Facebook news. Which reminds me: I need to check on the OSU attack article... Drmies (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To get an idea of what the article would turn into without constant monitoring, look at Infogalactic's version: innuendo introduced by "Investigators focused on..." and "Investigators also discovered a possible connection between..." etc. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EASYTARGET. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Almost every conspiracy theory implicates living people in criminal or suspicious behavior, so treating a conspiracy theory like a conspiracy theory (like this draft does) does not, in my opinion, automatically violate WP:BLP per Wikipedia:Offensive material and WP:CENSOR. Coverage of the conspiracy theory is still ongoing, so it's possible that this could gain enough traction to merit its own article. FallingGravity 18:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget? - (striking) If it was newsworthy enough to make the Times then there may be something usable here, does the project have an existing article on the alt-right and fake news affect on the presidential election? If not it should, as that was a significant factor in the race.
I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to Battle of the Buffet#Pizzagate as a one line sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was a mention on the Pizzagate disambiguation page. However, that's an even bigger WP:EASYTARGET because disambiguation pages "aren't" allowed to have references pointing out that the conspiracy theory is debunked. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see there is an argument that, though this is a malicious and silly hoax, it is a notable malicious silly hoax; but Wikipedia should be very reluctant to get drawn into the emerging Post-truth politics. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck: see new, reluctant keep !vote below. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should we delete all articles on conspiracy theories, then? Or should we cover them when they are given significant dismissal by mainstream sources and ensure that the article likewise presents the mainstream/skeptical view as the truth? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Delete because it's a minor conspiracy theory that I don't believe has enough notoriety outside of alt-right echo chambers. --Tarage (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's marked as a conspiracy but it passes notability. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources include the New York Times and Washington Post so it easily passes notability standards. By deleting it you leave only the conspiracy sites as sources for people to find. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The conspiracy theory is discussed (and usually debunked) in the WP:RSs such as BuzzFeed, The Daily Dot, Inquisitr, New York Times, PolitiFact, Washington City Paper, The Washington Post. I'm seeing a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:HARMFUL, and WP:EASYTARGET arguments that almost look like people haven't actually read the draft (just the descriptions of the subject matter at ANI, BLPN, and here). I don't like it either and I know it's going to be more work for us, but mainstream journalistic sources have given significant coverage of the idea and explained how it is wrong. WP:FRINGE does not mean that we pretend that this never happened (which would the conspiracy theorists the idea that we're in on it, btw), it means that we stick to mainstream sources (like the ones I listed) and make damn well sure that the mainstream view is the one that's given credence. As for BLP violations, I have eliminated those (and if I haven't, please point out where any are left). The articles on the conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship religion includes statements that, presented as fact, would violate BLP -- they are, like this draft though, sourced to mainstream journalistic sources and are dismissive of the conspiracy theory. This is not "what about that article", I am merely demonstrating how articles on potentially BLP-violating conspiracy theories are handled. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because something is covered in the news does not mean that it's independently notable. Comparisons to Birtherism are misplaced; Birtherism was a years-long phenomenon, while this particular crank nonsense has not yet reached that point. I see no reason why this jumps the hurdle from "short mention in another appropriate article" to "full-scale article." Neutralitytalk 00:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of your post would be applicable if the news sources were discussing the conspiracy theory in relation to other things: for example, an off-hand mention in an article about the pizza place or about fake news stories affecting the election. Instead, all the sources are specifically about the conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. A flurry of news articles about something doesn't necessarily mean that an incident is notable either. For example, in 2008, Dick Cheney made a joke about West Virginia. There was a backlash, and then he apologized. This minor, completely unencylopedic mini-drama was widely covered by an impressive array of sources who published stories "specifically about" the joke, for instance, the Associated Press, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, Fox News again, Slate, The New York Times, the New York Times again. But we don't have 2008 Dick Cheney West Virginia joke — because, notwithstanding "all the sources ... specifically about" the joke, it's still not independently notable. This is because we're not a newspaper and this stuff (highly recentistic in nature) doesn't remotely pass the ten-year test. Neutralitytalk 00:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is because it can be handled in a single sentence in the existing Cheney biography. To have too many details at the actual pizza restaurant article is undue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources are within a day of each other. The sources for the draft go back about a month. I've likewise raised concerned about WP:EFFECT, but it would be less work to contain the conspiracy theorists and theorism by locking down this article until the furor dies down than it would to keep deleting the various attempts to get the deletion (as has happened already). That or we need to make an WP:IAR exception and allow sources to be cited at the Pizzagate disambiguation page (which is what I tried to do originally). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my keep !vote, though not outright voting delete. I still disagree with a lot of the delete views presented (particularly the WP:EASYTARGET and [{WP:IDLI]] !votes), though considering WP:EFFECT wears me down. I have proposed a two-sentence line at Talk:Comet Ping Pong that gives the subject the appropriate dismissal it deserves (which is my primary concern). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here is a perfect demonstration of the problem; we already have users removing descriptions of the defamatory claims as false and debunked on the spurious grounds that it is "editorializing" to clearly reflect the mainstream view of false, defamatory claims about living people. This is the road we're going down again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, see WP:EASYTARGET. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial WP:BLP-violating hoax, violates WP:NOTNEWS, cooked up by 4chan. Need I say more? To quote someone on ANI, Wikipedia is not The Onion. Given the horrifying proliferation of fake news during this election cycle, the least Wikipedia can do is not repeat it. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The media sources to prove Pizzagate is a hoax are cherry-picked to side with the authors point of view. The alternate view is not included, and sources (ie: FBI list of code words used by pedophiles, email correspondence and social media pages of people involved with Pizzagate containing the same symbols and phrases) which go against the "conspiracy theory" narrative have not been added. This article is pushing a particular position, which undermines Wikipedia as a neutral source and unbiased encyclopedia. Leerwesen (talk) 3:53, 1 December 2016 (CET) — Leerwesen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Leerwesen (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Those sources were the only mainstream reliable sources presented. The "sources" that claim to be tying it to FBI code words are alt-right blogs, fake news sites, and pro-government Turkish newspapers trying to hide their country's problems. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the FBI code words are from an FBI document released by Wikileaks in 2007. Connecting its contents to the Podesta emails is a separate matter, but I hadn't heard that the document's authenticity was itself in doubt. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources that the article claims to debunk the theory do not provide sources them selves, most mainstream media articles about this dismiss it aggressively without providing proof or sources of their claims. I acknowledge that their is no clear cut hard evidence to support the theory however their is far more evidence in general supporting it making it far from being debunked. Dataanti (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2016 (EST) — Dataanti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
For you to say that means you haven't actually read the sources cited. Your claims appear to be in bad faith, given your previous attempts to POV-push the BLP violating parts of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite to account for the concerns in the comments above. Lasersharp (talk) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Lasersharp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Delete and salt - Unencyclopedic and trivial 4chan nonsense without any lasting value. The fact that reliable sources also consider it as such is all the more reason not to have it here. (Don't tell anybody but I'm getting 25 free pizzas from Comet Ping Pong for saying this.) Yintan  07:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Striking my delete vote above. This paranoid nonsense has just become notable. Yintan  11:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article/draft but keep a brief summary elsewhere like in the Reddit article. A redirect to the new place would be fine. The deletion of the Pizzagate subreddit plus Reddit's CEO admitting editing other people's comments was worldwide news and definitely notable in the context of Reddit. The article shouldn't be kept as-is because a lot of the details in it are wrong, but documenting that would be based on interpreting primary sources which would never fly in an article like this. IMHO in such situations, it's best to delete based on inability to meet NPOV, even if GNG is met. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no summary anywhere Wikipedia should not be the place to retain "fake news" which impacts living persons per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • appending The appalling event yesterday does affect my opinion. The article, if any, to be written on the event should have a short description of the allegations, but that does not make the initial trash "notable" at all. Collect (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to agree (independently of the deletion question) that the draft editorializes too much. We're supposed to summarize what the sources say, not bludgeon people with conclusions. The facts can speak for themselves. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Big lies cause lots of excitement, but the news value will disappear as quickly as it arose (WP:NOTNEWS). Recreate the article in six months if secondary reliable sources at that time write that the topic has long term significance. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If needed, add it as a paragraph in the Controversy section of Reddit maybe. Agreed to what Johnuniq said. Unless I see long term impact of this on the news cycle, there is absolutely no reason to consider keeping it here; least of all the nonstop WP:BLP violations (assuming the article itself isnt a violation as is). Soni (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable as and Internet phenomenon and as a conspiracy theory. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Category:Conspiracy theories and WP:NOTCENSORED. This is a real weeks long ongoing news story. Dozens of sources. For those who have "BLP concerns", take it to the talk page. This is not even an article yet and people want to get it deleted. Sad! Emily Goldstein (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is patently ridiculous. Categories aren't reasons. "Real" doesn't mean anything, only notability per mainstream sources does. WP:BLP is an important site policy that is not and should not be dismissed with "take it to the talk page." If you actually read it, you'd know that. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A notable conspiracy theory, especially considering the reportage in Turkish state press. HelgaStick (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep. I don't agree with the argument that Pizzagate is notable because it's been covered by so many sources: I don't think WP:10YT does a good job of explaining my viewpoint. So much coverage has happened as a result that I think this theory now passes 10YT. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC) - edited 04:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I cannot envisage this subject to remain neutral. In and of itself it is worthy of being on Wikipedia because it is such a big debate, but it is way too fluid. A simple reference as it is right now is one thing, but if ever it became an independent article then it would inevitably result in constant edit wars. It's certainly not within the scope of Wikipedia to ascertain the theory as true or false and mainstream media is certainly doing a very poor job in terms of proper journalism (such as using Snopes as a source), insomuch that we cannot rely on them in this case. The debate will rage here on Wikipedia until such a time that the government makes an official statement on the matter and/or a court of law passes a judgement, until either of those happen we won't have a healthy discussion on here. We have two sides to this debate: one side is saying there is something to be investigated, whatever that "something" may be, while the other side is saying things like "false news", "hoax", "silly tin-foil-hatters", "crazies", "Jimmy Savile was not a paedophile" and without any real explanation. Therefore, I propose for its deletion because it's the only possible way to maintain neutrality. Mere Mortal (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can't grow to a decent sized article without having to disregard WP:BLP. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A nutjob tried to kill people because of this crazy conspiracy theory, which gives us plenty of newsworthy stuff to talk about without having to sink into the more questionable depths of the actual false allegations borne from the conspiracy. Thanks for pinging me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article received attention from many people, and received major news coverage both in the US and internationally. It meets all criteria for notability, and should therefore be included. Deleting it is nothing more than censorship. Wikipedia is not supposed to censor, see WP:NOTCENSORED. However, the site has been overrun with administrators, many of whom are probably paid, who attempt to use the site to push their opinions on others. Wikipedia is nothing more than the ministry of Truth from 1984. Pizzagate is something that the Thought Police doesn't approve of, so no matter how much it meets all notability criteria, any mention of it will be deleted and censored, and anyone who tries to stop this will be banned. Don't even both editing on this site, most of the administrators work for Correct the Record and they will ban you if you write about a topic that doesn't fit into their narrative. Ag97 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle about the censorship concerns, but at this stage the problem is that it would be extremely difficult to provide a factual background to the key points of the story. Too many people will take a side one way or the other which would be incompatible with neutrality. If we can muster an article which would be completely neutral then I'm all for that, but I can't see it happening - there would inevitably be too many arguments for it to be appropriately maintained. It's also worth keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum (granted, this particular page has been created specifically for discussion), so we couldn't really have endless debates in the talk page. In this case it's not censorship, it's about neutrality and keeping the peace. Mere Mortal (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a good idea to close a discussion early with so many "delete" opinions. @Knowledgekid87, NorthBySouthBaranof, MarnetteD, Neutrality, JohnCD, Tarage, Softlavender, Leerwesen, Dataanti, Yintan, Collect, Johnuniq, Soni, Enterprisey, Mere Mortal, and PeterTheFourth: With the new information above, do you believe it's now worth keeping? Emily Goldstein (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not closing anything. I hope the discussion runs its full course of the seven day timeframe or whatever administrators decide. I'm just saying I've changed my opinion, that's all. Sagecandor (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote, thanks for the ping. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changed from an opinion to retarget earlier. Some guy shot the place up looking for secret tunnels and trafficked kids, all over the news. ValarianB (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and publish as article. if we cannot counter fake news with reliable sources, who is going to do it? international coverage here [1] this nomination is troubling and tends to undermine confidence of the POV of wikipedia. Beatley (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the scary event of yesterday, this article would do a real service in debunking this disgusting "gate" and exposing the Alt-Right freaks who perpetrate this kind of madness. Chisme (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reluctantly because, even though we make clear that it is malicious nonsense, giving coverage to this malicious nonsense helps those who spread it and gives it a spurious importance. In the world of Post-truth politics it does not matter that allegations and innuendos are refuted, the object is to get them spread by any means. Since Wikipedia must cover this, we should bear WP:UNDUE in mind and keep the extent of our coverage proportional to the real, long-term importance of this storm in a teacup. The present draft is not bad: when posted as an article, it will need long-term semi-protection and constant monitoring.
There is nothing new under the sun: in 1710 Swift wrote in The Examiner:

"...as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…"

JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is abundant sourcing for this conspiracy theory in light of the recent weapon incident in DC from a person allegedly investigating PizzaGate.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have added Michael T. Flynn's role in spreading the conspiracy theory before the shooting. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:31, 6 December 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 page'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:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Pizzagate_(conspiracy_theory)&oldid=1079640412"