Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamism (conspiracy theory)

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism (conspiracy theory)

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

Themastertree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-sensical unsourced original research. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:OR. scope_creep (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simultaneously nominated, I've closed my nom. It's one of a series by Themastertree (talk · contribs). Unsourced uber-conspiracy theory that supposedly asserts that Islamism is run by the US and other Western powers. This is basically an extended version of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but without reliable sources stating that there is such a coherent conspiracy theory under the name "Islamism" (and I don't think such sources exist), I don't think this article should exist, as it is basically original research. Fences&Windows 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources will be added, there are articles concerning this issue, remember it's a conspiracy theory based on opinions of people on the internet,the same way as theirs 9/11 theories based on peoples opinions and the evidence such as the thermite have scientific support on both sides to support the theory or object to it. As being only a theory, it's not asserting that Islamism really is run by the west, instead i'm asserting that people have made this theory, but it's not neccarily true. Also this is a collective article that annotate terrorist attacks in their "conspriacy theory" subsections.I'm making this article to list and refference multiple other articles that relate to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themastertree (talk • contribs) 02:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a lot like War against Islam, - User:Themastertree- August-16-10 8:39 PM, Mountain Time Zone. —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Festival of crackpot original research. Carrite (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. - OldManNeptune (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now has references. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And which of those is reliable? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A link dump of forum posts and crackpot websites does nothing to verify the content or show the notability of the topic. Stuartyeates, you need to re-read WP:RS. Fences&Windows 01:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR based on WP:POORSRC--Utinomen (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources aren't reliable. Eeekster (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources aren't credible and a wing-nut conspiracy theory needs that, at least. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing isn't anything like good enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2010 (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.