Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edison (talk | contribs) at 15:33, 29 August 2007 (→[]: weak keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina

Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article really doesn't serve any purpose at all except to talk about supposed "conspiracy theories". There are serious NPOV issues with the article. There are few reliable sources in the article. Misplaced Pages is not a blog or a personal sounding board. Need I talk about anything else? Dr. Cash 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Just chock full of POV junk, and has no purpose other than agenda-pushing. Jmlk17 07:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As article shows, various persistant rumors, theories, and common misconceptions have gotten considerable media attention. Article provides some context, analysis, and in some appropriate instances debunking. Room for improvement, but a useful article. -- Infrogmation 07:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are barely any reliable sources. Most of the links are to blogs and even forums. Not to mention major WP:NPOV issues. ---CWY2190 08:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, mostly unsourced POV conspiracycruft. I see no way this could possibly be useful, and Misplaced Pages is not a blog. --Coredesat 08:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Utter failure of WP:NPOV's text on "undue weight". "Opinions" of such people as Fred Phelps mean nothing. Conspiracy theories lack foundation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While everyone knows the weather is controlled by Martian Jews and Venusian Republicans from their secret undersea base on the dark side of the Moon, perhaps this could be a decent article allowing such drivel to be firmly debunked. Such theories, although entirely wacky, do exist. Nick mallory 11:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete it's hilarious but not exactly encyclopediodic--Pheonix15 12:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep This article is of sufficient quality to be kept. I think this AFD is merely attempt to white-wash over what really happened in August of 2005. --EAEB 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The whole basis of this article is synthesis 15:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because so long as everything is cited, this article concerns a fairly notable disaster that has indeed been the focus of all kinds of alternate theories. Just consider the following, for example: , , , etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep It needs severe editorial pruning and improvement, since it contains both plausible theories, such as "global warming makes hurricanes more severe" but dismisses it with the unsourced statement "Most climatologists today believe that the relationship between climate change and hurricane intensity is unproven, and that the increase in hurricane activity noted over the last 20 years, can be accounted for by factors other than climate change such as the 25-40 year cycle." Then it talks about God causing the hurricane, or conspirators with weather control machines controlling it, and mixes it in with discussions of conspirators blowing up levees to flood the black neighborhoods. So widely reported conspiracy theories are entitled to a balanced discussion, even if their truth is dubious, but the article should not be a grab bag of notions that are not held only by a tiny fringe group. Misplaced Pages, like Snopes, can serve a debunking function. Edison 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Science and technology)
• AfD debates