Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Katrina fringe theories

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina fringe theories

Hurricane Katrina fringe theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

• Keep. To which article, then, do we direct all of the speculation? It is not well supported that global warming led to this specific weather event (and efforts to add commentary of that sort to the main Katrina articles were staunchly rebuffed years ago). As far as I see, every other assertion in the article is sourced as to the person claiming it, and it should not be hard to find sources for general rebuttals to the fringe propositions. The fact is, this event generated an unusual amount of speculation of the nature of conspiracy theories, and we would be less informative as an encyclopedia if we omitted coverage of this phenomenon.
  T
  15:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  Simple: we just don't cover it. That's the point of

  WP:FRINGE. Marginally held non-notable fringe theories—which these are—should not be covered on Wikipedia at all. And in the section about global warming, no-one is suggesting that global warming was responsible for the existence of the storm; they're suggesting that it was responsible for the severity of the storm, which is actually not a fringe theory at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Weak delete These theories are somewhat interesting, but they have not gained the traction that other conspiracy theories (JFK assassination, 9/11, the faked moon landings) have shown. By this time, it seems clear the theories are non-notable. Phiwum (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is absolutely nothing inherently notable in people claiming that god was responsible for physical phenomenon x. thats a trivial, common assertion, and of course from a religious person's point of view, obvious. we would have to have mention in every article on a physical event. any such claim would have to be inherently notable, say, the head of the national weather service, which would be surprising and garner attention. further, any such notable comments can simply be in the main article. creating this article is wildly POV, as long as all the claims listed here are fringe. by including godly, supernatural, conspiratorial together, without a source that itself lumps them together, is synthesis. arguments for keep offered here dont support keeping article, only in adding well sourced fringe theory discussions to the main article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The
    T
    17:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep- Just because something is odd, or, heaven forbid, wacky, doesn't mean we delete it when its a valid encyclopedic topic. And quite frankly, given the amount of sourcing, its hard to call it anything but. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The title of the page precludes its validity. For one, self-styling it as a "fringe theory" means that

  WP:FRINGE must apply to it. And looking at a few random sources from the "Goddidit" section, they're either a) dead sources or b) not reliable. There is very little, if any, evidence of the theories' notability, and these theories are not held by a proportion of people to result in an obligation to cover. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • • Comment: The article existed for more than 3 years before an editor moved the article to the "Fringe theories" title. The move was done as far as I can see unilaterally and without discussion on the talk page, and possibly has some POV issues. I therefore take issue with the suggestion that the title is QED that the article must be deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and also poorly sourced, sources are dead or from blogs [1]. This is what give Wikipedia a bad name. I'm surprise the article didn't claim the reason Katrina struck the coast of MS was because of the casinos. Give me a break. —Mike Allen 07:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The article" doesn't claim anything, it merely relates claims that were made by others. If some widely followed newsmaker had come out and said that the storm hit because of the casinos, that would rightly be included. While some of the links are indeed dead at this point, they were live at the time the article was written, and can be verified via the Internet Archive.
    T
    01:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You're right, this article should be removed from mainspace onto an userpage for a rewrite. Until then my decision is still the same, Delete. Thank you. —Mike Allen 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the sources cited by the article remain valid. Please show me which policy justifies moving such an article out of mainspace solely based on some of the links being dead links.
        T
        02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
        • You know, I don't even really know why I commented here, I guess because I seen "Hurricane Katrina" which is something that affected me. I let my personal feelings get in the way with this decision, so disregard my comments. I apologize. —Mike Allen 07:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, retitle and rework. The unilateral retitlting of the article to "Fringe theories" should be undone. I suggest retitling to something like "Misconceptions and alternative views about Hurricane Katrina", and reworking the article along that line. Katrina continues to be frequently mentioned in political contexts, often with rather wild or inaccurate assertions or assumptions attached. The "Rumors about the New Orleans levees" is perhaps the best part of the current article, giving some historical background. (The Divine Retribution section is perhaps the weakest; as with many religious questions much of it is related to opinions of belief that are neither provable nor disprovable by fact.) Once the POV retitling "Fringe theories" is removed, we could have a useful article dealing with too frequently repeated falsehoods and misconceptions (eg, "New Orleans was built below sea level" etc) without labeling people or notions as "fringe". -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable, but a rename is in order. Perhaps "alternative" instead of "fringe". Everyking (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that they're really not. These theories got the scantest of scant coverage, if any at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, per Infrogmation, as an incredibly notable set of fringe theories. Have you read the sources? Have you heard of
  WP:IMASHAMEDTHISISINWIKIPEDIA variety. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Again, they're not notable. This entire article sources the source of the comments, but with no indication that they were picked up, besides a Houston Chronicle "some say it was divine retribution" article, and coverage of the Chocolate City speech. This !vote, and Everyking's !vote above, is just a kneejerk "it's sourced and it exists; therefore it's notable" comment even when I repeatedly show it isn't. Besides, we shouldn't bring the topic of divine retribution into articles about the sporiadic exhibition of natural phenomena, especially if said exhibition is in living memory; see Hurricane Floyd, 2010 Haiti earthquake, Mount Pinatubo (only mentions a generic, localised, and tribal volcano deity as part of the cultural history), Tunguska event (even though that's not in living memory), September 11 attacks (not natural phenomena, but still only mentions God/Allah as the motive and not as the reason...) why should this article be the outlier? Sceptre ^(talk) 08:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll source it, OK? Goshdarn. Spector, do you ever read the newspaper? Take today's USA Today, for example: yet another story about myths about Katrina refugees. QED. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, no, it doesn't deal with the issues discussed in the article at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That material is probably best placed in

T

00:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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.