Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conspiracy theories

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Conspiracy theories. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Conspiracy theories|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Conspiracy theories. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Specific notes about conspiracy theory AfDs
"A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations."

Conspiracy theories

Bhagwa Love Trap conspiracy theory

Bhagwa Love Trap conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POVFORK of Love jihad conspiracy theory. There is absolutely not enough coverage to warrant a separate article and the content already existed at Love jihad conspiracy theory#"Reverse"_love_jihad. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is literally the reverse of the topic it is being claimed it is a POVFORK of. They are more like the opposites or antitheses of each other than anything else. And the page here is supported by its own dozen references. It's possible that both of these pages could be nested under a broader parent article at a neutral title encompassing both children, but there's no reason to nest one topic under its thematic sibling. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Based on the content of this article, it appears to be a fringe social media arises minor conspiracy theory lacking credible evidences. The topic is primarily sourced from opinion pieces, social media debates. If the sources mainly discuss it as a reactionary narrative to Love Jihad, the content could potentially be merged into a broader article on interfaith conspiracy theories in India (love jihad) but its look like POV forked already. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the topic is about a conspiracy theory, but the discussion of the topic is not itself fringe. The pieces by the BBC, TheQuint and Scroll.in are all news, not opinion. As the BBC notes, it's an online trend causing real-world harm. Agreed that it could be merged into a broader article on interfaith conspiracy theories in India, but that page isn't Love Jihad, which is one specific conspiracy theory. One conspiracy can't be a POVFORK of a different conspiracy theory. A POVFORK is the same topic or scope covered from a divergent POV. That is not the situation here even remotely. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With due respect, I believe this article deserves to stand on its own. Over the past five or six years, the Bhagwa Love Trap has been widely discussed, primarily with claims coming from the Muslim community. Additionally, several major and reliable media organizations have covered this issue extensively (WP:RS). Baqi:) (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Can't meet WP:GNG. Should be moved back to the main article. Agletarang (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The dubious notion of whether Love Jihad is a parent here aside, that's called a merge, not a delete. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a part of Love Jihad topic rather than being notable on its own. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : The topic has gained attention on social media for minor period of time and in certain fringe groups, references provided, such as Scroll, Boomlive, and Alt News, primarily discuss the conspiracy theory as a reaction to the "Love Jihad" narrative rather than providing evidence of its widespread acceptance or impact. And the main article Love jihad already mentioned about this side. I don't think this minor pov piece has that much encyclopaedic value to remain a standalone separate piece. CelesteQuill (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These AfD responses are incoherent. Quite literally none of the reasons provided by anyone merits deletion. Since most arguments appear to some variation on the theme of the topic not having standalone notability, the only two reasonable options in this situation, where the title here remains a viable redirect, are redirect or merge. And since the claimed parent only has one sentence and one source on the subject, whereas this page has an entire page and 12 sources on the subject, the material should obviously be merged. Deletion is a nonsensical vote to simply delete the content and sourcing, including sources like the BBC that are not present on the other page. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG sources discuss the conspiracy theory as a reaction to the "Love Jihad" rather than on its own merit.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]