Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy 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 due to sufficient reliable sources which verify notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a premature WP:CONTENTFORK. Any useful info should be in Death of Osama bin Laden. —Chris!_c/t 04:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You cite premature content fork. However, Death of Osama bin Laden is already a fat article, and if this article in question were only a section, within a week (about how long this AfD will last), the section would break away to Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories anyway. Why AfD so soon? Opinions to delete coming in in the next few days would be keeps if rendered a week from now as the article expands. This whole topic is likely the fastest growing of any ever on Wikipedia. I contend that this AfD is premature, not the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is premature when there are limited info on the subject. You ask why AfD so soon. I ask why create so soon? I don't understand sometimes why people can't be patience and create an article when it is necessary.—Chris!_c/t 04:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Limited information, but not that limited, and it's coming in quickly. I started the article because I know there are a lot of people who will want to dump info into Wikipedia about this in the coming weeks. I didn't want them to put it in the wrong place and have it simply deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frodesiak's argument to have a special depot for conspiracy content is compelling, and it doesn't take a PhD in telling the future to know that this will be a persistent and notable topic for decades to come. Erie lhonan 17:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already there are numerous reliable sources on this. It could be merged to the parent article, but this content keeps being removed from Death of Osama bin Laden , so this could be used as a build area for a later merge, if that is desired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freepers, Rethugs, Birthers and Teapers need a home of their own. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Fringe theories - if it must be covered, it should get a single sentence in the main article. This article violates policies on undue weight and avoiding unnecessary splits. Neutrality^talk 05:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose you want to delete 9/11 conspiracy theories as well then? – AJL^talk 05:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One is a notable and complex phenomenon that has persisted over the course of years. The other is a concept discussed on a few blogs and mentioned in passing in a few newspaper articles. It's still an inappropriate content fork. Let's say someone made articles on Planning of the operation against Osama bin Laden; burial of Osama bin Laden; Osama bin Laden compound, and so forth. All of these should be discussed to the appropriate length (i.e., due weight), but that treatment should occur on the main article page. It would makes no sense at all to split them apart. So it is here. Neutrality^talk 06:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this one is likely to persist over the course of several years as well; in fact, it already has existed. The current events just make the previous -- and new -- theories more visible. – AJL^talk 06:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree. I doubt hugely whether conspiracy theories over Bin Laden's death will be of higher magnitude than 9/11. Why? Because 9/11 had consequences that many have brought to view 9/11 as an excuse for such action - i.e. War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq. Simply put, Bin Laden's death is a deliberate elimination. I suppose we are going to get the wacky conspiracy theories from the minority that Bin Laden is now hiding in a cave somewhere and as a result this page will be deserving of that. Therefore I think we should create a conspiracy theories on the death of Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley. Stevo1000 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above comment is verbatim of a below !vote. – AJL^talk 23:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google News search shows more than enough articles have been published about this topic (in just over 24 hours!) to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – AJL^talk 05:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weak keep, I guess. Although there is little doubt this article will be needed before too long, I suspect we may have jumped the gun a little in creating in so quickly (per recentism and, to a lesser extent, not news). Now that it's there, I think we may as well keep it. --Thepm (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change that to a strong keep. It's now official. Conservapedia's front page says "Questions are emerging now from liberals, libertarians, Tea Partiers and even a relative of a 9/11 victim about whether the killing of Bin Laden happened as claimed." I mean, even a relative. Game over for that tricky Obama (you know he's really Norwegian). --Thepm (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as of right now, I really have to agree with Neutrality (the person above me, not the policy.) At this point, this really should be discussed in either the reactions article or the main death article in an appropriate subsection. Once the section reaches an overburdening length or the theories start to mature a little, it can be spun out. I have no doubt that this article will *eventually* be necessary, but right now this set of wikipedia articles would offer more value to the reader if skepticism was discussed on either the main death page or the death reactions page. It'll take little enough work to recreate it later, and I really do think it's better for the reader covered in the main sections for now. Kevin (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable conspiracy theory. 1 Portillo (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very relevant and interesting,. Should the US goverment release unedited pictures of Bin Laden dead and development of this article stalled then Merge ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes the most sense of all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once the Obama Administration releases unedited pictures of UBL's corpse, the vast majority of the conspiracy talk will fade away. The BHO Administration will mostly likely release these photos to the public by the end of the week. There's no need for a content fork when this content merely hinges its hopes upon the BHO Administration not releasing the photos of the corpse. Rondy (talk) 0319 3 May 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
That's quite a WP:CRYSTALBALL-ish assumption there. Who's to say that images will be released? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, one could have argued that the Obama birth certificate theories would go away once his full certificate was released, but they haven't. Many people would just argue that the pictures are fake anyway. Kansan (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's a little too early to defenestrate this article. We'll see if the theories die down or keep going. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of these "theories" have any traction. By "traction", I mean serious analysis and coverage in reliable secondary sources. Page consists of WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:COATRACKing/editorializing. Abductive (reasoning) 09:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I doubt hugely whether conspiracy theories over Bin Laden's death will be of higher magnitude than 9/11. Why? Because 9/11 had consequences that many have brought to view 9/11 as an excuse for such action, hence conspiracy theories - i.e. War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq. Simply put, Bin Laden's death is an deliberate elimination. I suppose we are going to get the wacky conspiracy theories from the minority that Bin Laden is now hiding in a cave somewhere and as a result this page will be deserving of that. Therefore I think we should create a conspiracy theories on the death Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley. It would set a precedent for conspiracy theories regarding individuals. Stevo1000 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is still a topic of speculation. Lyk4 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong keep. What if everybody got all politically correct in 1963-64 and arbitrarily used their power over an important form of media and decided to erase all trace of theories concerning the assination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy as irrelevant, "inadequately sourced in mainstream media", or offensive to their sensitivities? This article is included at Wikipedia: JFK assassination conspiracy theories. No double standard just because the subject is Osama bin Laden. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Normally, I'd delete, as it seems like a clearing house for any wacko to spread their theory. Rather, I'm for keeping this page, because it will serve as a useful sociological description of people whose personal belief systems have gone off the rails. I'll be monitoring the page, and deleting anything that has the slightest whiff of crankery. --Evud (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking alot on yourself User Evud with such a threat, as that is what it is tantamount to. You can view the page and its contributors however you please: your views do not make everyone else's "crankery". Consensus in such a contentious matter is required, and be sure you will be subjected to it along with everyone else. It's the Wikipedia way in such circumstances. Being "Bold", fine for cleaning up claptrap in "trivia" sections in articles with overblown "In popular culture" headings and such is one thing; at this page it is not acceptable.Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a threat, but the fact you think it is one says more about you than me. I'm merely saying I'm going to attack contributions with poor reasoning and evidence on that page relentlessly, because poorly supported crankery -- and conspiracy theories ARE crankery (see Michael Barkun's Culture of Conspiracy and Ted Goertzel's "Belief in Conspiracy Theories") -- don't deserve to be on Wikipedia, sociological explanations and descriptions of conspiracy theories combined with rebuttals are another matter. After all, this place was founded on the Enlightenment and rational ideals of Diderot's Encyclpedia. --Evud (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Lyk4. This article is a messy aggregation of all the crankiest news available on a topic. That is not the basis of a good article. I suspect this could be a valid topic, but we should wait a few weeks until some decent reflective material is available. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is well put. It's pretty much too early for decent work right now. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There is certainly potential for expansion, and verifiability issues can be gradually improved over time. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it was created too soon, and is very spotty at the moment, but it is/will be a notable subject easily meriting it's own article. In a way, I therefore consider a deletion discussion as almost a waste of time (except that articles under dispute usually improve / improve faster...) Ingolfson (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has potential. 87.211.213.223 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC) — 87.211.213.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Cobbled-together innuendo, recent and old, does not make a viable argument. If it someday gets to the level of 9/11 or birth certificates, then revisit. Right now there just isn't enough there but weak one-liners about blogs, facebooks, and random, non-notable professors. Many of the keep calls so far are garden variety "it is useful/interesting" twaddle. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tarc, for your friendly opinion. Because "useful" (or even only "interesting") are such twaddle aspects of Wikipedia. Ingolfson (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping a neutral view on things, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid does discourage !votes that read "It's interesting/useful". -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This will likely end up being no consensus, or euphemism for weak keep. For something of this importance, it will be notable because many people believe it. Add that to the mysterious circumstances surrounding OBL's life and death, quick burial precluding examination of body, lack of photos, only confirmation made by US Govt, this has the perfect elements for conspiracy theorists. 194.254.137.115 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to WP:FRINGE, mere existence of a theory is not enough. In order for us to have an article on a fringe theory, the theory needs to have been discussed (as opposed to being mentioned in passing) by mainstream sources (debunking qualifies for this). As of yet, this has not happened. Mainstream sources have not yet taken note of these theories. If and when that happens, then we can create (or re-create) an article about these theories. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Changing to Keep - the current state of the article cites reliable sources that discuss the topic. Therefore, I must change my !vote... it now passes the minimum requirements set out at WP:FRINGE. Personally, I think these theories are absolute hogwash, but they are noted (and thus WP:Notable) hogwash. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete the article has already turned into rubbish William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep but be ready for renomination It's hard to know the long term retention and consideration of these things until there's been some serious publication(if ever) about it and the current information glut gets processed by the press. i kan reed (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original essay. Quoting a Keep voter above who makes my point: It's hard to know the long term retention and consideration of these things until there's been some serious publication(if ever) about it and the current information glut gets processed by the press. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Do not confuse "conspiracy", used today to discredit anything unpopular (ask Galileo), with inconsistency (again...ask Galileo). For one, there are too many inconsistencies with this story (never mind that bin Laden has reportedly been dead for a decade). Two, no media outlet can confirm who did the operation, who took the DNA test, autopsy report, nothing. It is amazing how people want to choose which things to keep in a supposed-encyclopedia when it is backed by absolutely nothing. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC) — Strawberry on Vanilla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Pushing the conspiracy itself as a reason to keep the article is admittedly a tactic I've never seen before. Maybe those that wish to delete the article are in on the conspiracy. (cue X-Files theme music) Tarc (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cry all you want...but it doesn't change the facts: you can't give me a single government official backing any of the sources on the "Death of OBL" page. All of it is simply the media claiming a unit, that the US government denies the existence of, carried out the mission. Now who is the conspirator? Me? lol 184.37.255.61 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to debate the merits of the conspiracy itself, but rather whether the subject matter meets out guidelines for inclusion. Btw, who is "me" ? Are you "Strawberry on Vanilla" but logged out? Tarc (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep using common sense. The conspiracies have already started flying left and right (do any of the deleters even listen to the BBC or other news?) Seriously, you could have started this article DURING Obama's speech with justification. There needs to be a place to put this "notable" information outside of the main article, with a paragraph or two within the main article for context, and a hatnote pointing here. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the keep proponents seem to be pointing to lacunas in the official account, but these can be adequately covered in the main article. The conspiracy theories, on their own legs, are not yet notable. The 9/11 conspiracy theories article is crap, but it's crap that we put up with because of the overwhelming notability of the topic. This is not (yet) comparable. Savidan 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may be premature, but let’s face it, conspiracy nuts will come up with all sort of BS about this and it’s going to have some prominence, even on mainstream media. Can I see the future? No. Do we have a looong line of previous examples for cases like this? Yes. Ridiculous theories regarding the killing of Bin Laden are already out, we’ll get a history channel bullpie special on these theories etc etc, so we’d might as well keep the article… Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons stated by other editors...--Martianmister (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep utter nonsense of course, but still notable in that reliable sources have paid considerable attention to it. Chester Markel (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons that have already been stated. --Veyneru (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is breaking news. In the next few weeks, the number of conspiracy theories is going to increase exponentially. We need to be able to categorize them and preserve them as an integral part of this incident in history. No one would attempt to delete the "John F. Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories" page, would they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniob (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Death of Osama bin Laden. Really a stub that shouldn't exist. Lugnuts (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of the article should not depend on whether the theories are credible. The article is useful as an objective record of the scale and persistence of such theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.21.112 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are conspiracy theories (of course) which are receiving coverage from various media outlets (of course). They're just theories, after all. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden exist so they should be reported. Biscuittin (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- SNOW. MMetro (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or wp too is run by Obama. If that is even his real name. Chaan (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of these "theories" have any substantial coverage, and the articles cited mostly demonstrate the fact that every idiot can self-publish their own theories these days. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is rare that I advocate removing material from wikipedia - but this page is utter dross. A few newspapers reporting facebook pages... come on! Until a credible conspiratorial narrative is created - this page needs to be deleted. 129.11.77.197 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just WP:SPECULATION at this time. Once these theories have more time to develop, and have more reliable sources, then it is time to consider an article like this (or making a section in Death of Osama bin Laden. Dougofborg^(talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – Why does the article not cite Alex Jones? See Alex Jones claims Bin Laden ‘mission’ is a fake -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If you feel so inclined to have it referenced in the page, why not add it yourself, or at least talk about it on the talk page of that article. – AJL^talk 23:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons cited by Wikiuser100, among others. BigD527 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other conspiracy theories have their articles, so why can't Bin Laden's death have its own article? Strong keep. - XX55XX (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now for reasons stated above. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and that in case that the content is appropriate at all. It's been only two days since Bin Laden was killed. Of course there are conspiracy theories. I mean, they just dropped the body in the ocean, what's up with that? Well, that's what i thought, and of course a lot of people is thinking this sort of things. Excellent, in one year there might just be something of worth - frankieMR (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the incubator. The original text can be available for repair and updates there to any user. There is a good chance the theories will persist and become more notable and studied in the future.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a reliable source reporting on the conspiracy theories disputing this so called "burial at sea". [1] [2] If reuters and the la times is reporting the controversy then Wikipedia should report it too.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can (and should) talk about it - in the relevant article - death of Osama bin Laden. No one is suggesting that we should not mention it anywhere, just that an independent article is not warranted at this time. Kevin (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content fork that came about due to WP:RECENTISM. We have no idea if any of these theories will stick. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is replete with OR and SYNTH and is written as a POV fork. There will always be conspiracy theories, but we should only bother with the demonstrably notable ones - and only then to expose the crackpots to the light day. Rklawton (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as already notable topic -- though the exotic idea that a government may not tell the entire truth about sensitive political and military activities is not "conspiracy theory", it's good frigging sense to anyone with a brain not brought up in lalaland (though sadly this may only be a small percentage of wikipedians and journalists!). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough coverage to be notable in its own right. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like the 9/11 truth movement, this is also notable enough to have its own article. Whether the claims are true or not are utterly irrelevant. 67.80.12.192 (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death of Osama bin Laden and recreate the article when it's long and comprehensive enough to warrant its own article. There is no reason why a 500+ words article should have a separate article when it could still be included in the main article. — MT (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure this'll only get more attention in the future. --Ks64q2 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a diehard inclusionist, but this article is simply rubbish. It's filled with original research, and it's egregiously POV. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this will get a lot more attention in the future. but the article must be improved of course. --helohe (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the points raised above; the article is not cohesive and there is not enough unified information to justify it having its own article. Maybe create a section in Death of Osama bin Laden for it. Musikxpert (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Death of Osama bin Laden and recreate if necessary once the initial media/emotional backlash has died down. Sources regarding the event in both articles are currently mostly press statements and media reports, and whilst conspiracy theories are forming and getting some coverage in social media, it's crystal balling at the moment while no widely accepted (in so much as a theory can be) detailed theories are establishing themselves yet. I think it will be a difficult article to maintain neutrally due to systematic bias, but certainly worthy of inclusion if and when a theory inevitably gets similar recognition to other major deaths - this is potentially the most significant death in the War on Terror so far. BulbaThor (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep or (at the very least) incubate. No point deleting now that it has been announced the photo isn't going to be released because that's going to fuel any conspiracy theory massively. Arguably there's a degree of crystal balling in keeping it, but coherent and detailed theories in the immediate future are now inevitable. BulbaThor (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is purely speculative, as per John Vandenburg above, we should wait a few weeks until some decent reflective material is available. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is only a no independent confirmation (other than from a politician) of the identity of anyone who was killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.196.170 (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. --143.105.11.99 (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC) — 143.105.11.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - the conspiracy theories have already sprung up everywhere and show no signs of abating.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - it's too soon after the event to form a neutral opinion and all official material has not been released yet.--Rogington2 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Death of Osama bin Laden. Should get a passing mention in the main article, at most; this soon after the raid, this is all speculation at best anyway. Names are hard to think of (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Keeping the article right now may violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTEMP but I'd venture that this topic will be notable enough to warrant its own article. However, if kept, the article will need major re-working. Most of the current version reads like a big ol' WP:POVFORK-- more care needs to be taken to comply with WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Specifically, WP:RS are needed to describe what the Conspiracy theories are, and then more WP:RS to describe the mainstream view on that point. Mildly Mad^T_C 16:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable enough to have its own article. After this has died down a bit, we can think about merging it into Death of Osama bin Laden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedintm (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -No body, no picture, and a nonexistent assassin group is a recipe for widespread coverage of a conspiracy theory.Smallman12q (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The other article is large enough, and this has sufficient RS coverage for an article on its own. And, of course, the fact that there were over 23,000 editor views of the article yesterday does seem to demonstrate perhaps a modicum of viewer interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so much about it even now and these things only grow with time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.177.221 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more than enough information being released in regards to conspiracy theories. I've just added a section about Iranian conspiracy beliefs and also a belief from Andrew Napolitano. It is not just a Facebook phenomenon at this point, these theories are world-wide and being repeated and invented by high-level people. Silver seren^C 21:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More and more doubts are being cast in sources and this is a serious question over whether this even occurred since there is absolutely no valid evidence that it did.-Metallurgist (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's too much of this stuff to cram into the Death of Osama bin Laden article without adding undue weight or sacrificing verifiable material. I don't actually believe these theories, but that is irrelevant. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Don't dignify this garbage by putting it in the factual articles. Give it some time and then it can probably be cut off like a dead leaf on a house plant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a substantial amount of material with a good number of references that would overcrowd the Death of Osama bin Laden article if it was merged. There's no doubt as more information comes to light and events occur more conspriracy theories will also start. Editor5807^speak 23:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough's been said about this to merit a seperate article. Giant Snowman 00:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wonder what people would say if GWB said he got OBL, but released no photos. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another awful place for all the cranks to post their nonsense...this is already a COATRACK.--MONGO 02:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely covered in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though we all know its pretty much nonsense. As per wikipedia neutral approach, all parties should be given space to voice their finding. Given that most of the content has been cited, so this page is worth the purpose. Jalal0 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's a conspiracy to keep this! Lugnuts (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, surrounding an event of historical importance. Enough content and coverage in reliable sources to merit an article. Makes for interesting reading, the kind of extended detailed content people should expect from Wikipedia. -- œ ^™ 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in the mainstream media. --131.123.122.23 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — 131.123.122.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Heavy coverage in media... will basically never stand a chance of getting deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those theories are perpetrated by anti-americanism sources and filled with BS statements by who don't know a s**** about military operations. --Ciao 90 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Says who Ciao 90? You?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in no way trying to disparage those who's "keep" !votes are in good faith. I would however, like to note that several of these are based on nonsense (i.e. "Obama is actually Norwegian", ect.), and I hope that this is taken into consideration. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any valuable content to Death of Osama bin Laden and Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden. Take note there are no articles on conspiracy theories surrounding the deaths of Elvis Presley, Jimmy Hoffa, Princes Diana, Marilyn Monroe, or Adolf Hitler. Only John F. Kennedy is accorded that honor. Also, three separate articles devoted to the death of bin Laden? Really? — the Man in Question (in question) 16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a good amount of articles on the web relating to this, so I think this should be kept. Buggie111 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a few reliable sources are talking about these conspiracy theories. As of the time of this comment a search for "osama bin laden conspiracy theories" returns 3,870 results in Google News, and from what I can tell all of them discuss conspiracy theories surrounding his death. If it was just a few fringe blogs speculating about this with no mainstream media coverage, I would agree to delete. But given that this has been picked up by well known commentators and elected politicians and has been covered by a large number of mainstream media organizations I would say there is enough here to warrant a separate article. 96.241.74.23 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a discussion over whether there are conspiracy theories—it's a discussion over whether conspiracy theories deserve an article independent of the Death of Osama bin Laden and Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden articles, which doesn't make much sense to me. For example, the childhood of Osama bin Laden was been covered by a large number of mainstream media organizations, as has his marital status, but that doesn't mean there should be separate articles on these topics. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are often broken up for space purposes or to go in depth on a detail; see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's simply too much detail on this notable topic to include it all on the bin Laden death article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not known, though, that these "deathers" will have any lasting impact or notability. "Birthers" and "truthers" are not the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how short the media's memory is. I thought the people talking about death panels were "deathers". Hopefully the "proofer" name will catch on.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By bringing together disparate sources and uniting the conspiracy theories, Wikipedia creates, rather than records, a unified conspiracy theory. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I have no idea what the "deathers" or "proofers" or whatever you want to call them believe. They don't have a cohesive theory, let alone notable belief of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOWBALL Anentiresleeve (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is definitely not a candidate for a snow close. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is, the only reason some are voting delete is because they don't like it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing much of the same things being said that were said at the snowball close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing these "theories" are an indiscriminate collection of information regarding loose ends and such, and do not have the same notability as JFK or birther or other conspiracies. Due to the recentism, this isn't a snow. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just to add a small note, I think the notability of this topic is underestimated as part of a regional bias. All conspiracy theories covered on WP are covered because the theories in themselves are notable through influence and coverage (such as 9/11 theories), not because they're true (or likely to be). The topic of this article is mostly notable in non-English speaking regions of the world (notably Russia and some Middle Eastern countries where it's a semi-government view apparently), which I can understand is reason for people to say 'delete' through not having heard of it, but that's precisely the bias. 158.143.132.22 (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — 158.143.132.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oh, and before people tag me as SPA, this is a dynamic IP and I've been around a while! 158.143.132.22 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little late for that. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I want to know about these theories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.102.226 (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Delete the more blatant, pourly sourced fantasies: any opinion hanging around shouldn't be copied here unless some serious media have talked about it. --Azurfrog (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a good place to put diverse theories about who knew what and how much/little the Pakistani government really knew/approved, if that is mixed with fringe, UFO and Reptilians-from-outer-space theories, that just adds to the puzzle and fun of reading. Some Professor somewhere believed that binLaden was betrayed – not too far fetched IMO. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received lots of coverage from the moment Bin Laden's death has been announced, and given the political climate in this country, will be ongoing for years to come. Shaliya waya (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing isn't the issue here so the relevant issues come down to recentism and notability. I'm not concerned about recentism - this deals with one of the most notable world news events of the year, if not the decade. As such, this is a major topic that has garnered serious worldwide discussion and as such, is certainly worthy of encyclopedic coverage and whether or not the theories themselves are fringe (they seem to be) has no bearing on WP:FRINGE, which prevents Wikipedia from promoting fringe theories. WP:FRINGE itself says that the policy does not prevent coverage of such theories, so that argument is really a non-starter. (Also, the comparison to pop culture figures such as Elvis Presley is also not really apt as the death of bin Laden has great geopolitical ramifications). Kansan (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliably sourced, legitimate fork. JoeSperrazza (talk)
Keep Having a separate page for this de-clutters the already packed death of osama bin laden article. The theories are being covered by numerous mainstream media outlets and are sure to be discussed for decades to come any time bin Laden's death is mentioned. See the Kennedy assassination for further proof of this. (NotorSB (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Well sourced, filled with information that would otherwise make both the Osama bin Laden and the Death of Osama bin Laden pages look cluttered and messy.Cssiitcic (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main article is long enough, good idea to split this off. 75.111.17.134 (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PsychoticReaper (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no concrete proof of Osama's death has been offered. Let the conspiracy theorists run. For the most part, notable they are not. Merge any worthwhile content to the 'death of' article Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously properly sourced and notable, legitimate fork. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of perfectly good sources, although the article seriously needs more work. --Anthem of joy (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the idea(s) are ridiculous, it's a legitimate topic to be an article on its on. Also neutral POV for Wikipedia. Shuipzv3 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see enough reliable sources for this to gain the status of an article --Guerillero | My Talk 02:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep will, as with many other conspiracy theory articles, provide a good place to examine pro/anti views and make your mind up. Mike Young (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs to be kept. There have been many sources confirming the so called "conspiracy" such as Dr. Steve Pieczenik and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. Look them up.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although I hate conspiracy theories and the such, it is still notable and it seems to be well-cited.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are lots of the individual theories not worth mentioning for lack of sources? Maybe. Is this a notable subtopic with a ton of reliable source coverage? No doubt about it. Abide by the sources, says I. Steven Walling 01:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough reliably sourced information for an article, independent of the main article that actually describes his death and previous unaccepted descriptions of his death. Even though I don't believe a word of what is described in the conspiracy theories, they have had widespread replication across different sources, including tertiary compilations of theories in newspaper articles including what some people might think are rational arguments rebutting the official story (whatever the US government says that is at this point in time, as they have changed their story many times so far). Ansell 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep, certainly has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2011 (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.