Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBI secret society

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. There are sources that discuss people's belief in the subject; article subjects do not have to exist as real things. Updates to article content or name can be handled outside of AFD. RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

FBI secret society

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

FBI secret society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete as per WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTNEWS. A phrase that appeared in a one or two day news cycle is not notable enough for its own article. Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - The subject is one of the predominant RWCTs (right wing conspiracy theories) and has recieved WP:SIGCOV, internationally, for nearly two years.
  • January 24, 2018 [1]
  • January 24, 2018 [2]
  • January 25, 2018 [3]
  • January 25, 2018 [4]
  • January 26, 2018 [5]
  • December 18, 2018 [6]
  • January 25, 2019 [7]
  • April 26, 2019 [8]
  • July 29, 2019 [9]
  • July 30, 2019 [10]
  • July 30, 2019 [11]
  • July 31, 2019 [12]
  • August 2, 2019 [13]
  • August 3, 2019 [14]
  • August 8, 2019 [15]
  • October 6, 2019 [16]
  • October 7, 2019 [17]
  • October 7, 2019 [18]

  It's even been discussed in books: [19][20] - MrX 🖋 21:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep This topic has been widely reported and discussed in the mainstream media for at least the past year. It's a core narrative of Pres. Trump and the GOP. The nomination fails on its face. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Meh. I guess it meets GNG, but it should be more clearly described as a conspiracy theory (and/or perhaps titled as such), given the way it's covered in these sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the nomination seems to be based on the article, its state and sourcing as it was two years ago. However the story has lived rather longer than that and still attracts coverage. We're not here to judge the truth of the conspiracy, just the size of the attention paid to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election, which reports on the investigation into the substantive matters to which this accusation is premised. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is rather a separate topic -- despite Trump's backers' using it to deflect from the IG findings. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This is better material for a conspiracy theory Wiki than Wikipedia.TH1980 (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  @TH1980: May I ask what Wikipedia content policy that is based on? - MrX 🖋 23:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  That is an opinion based on WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTNEWS.TH1980 (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Strong keep. An obviously notable topic that is covered in multiple RS. It passes all the criteria for an article.

BTW, MrX, it should be titled FBI secret society (conspiracy theory), per our normal practice. Feel free to move it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I think we should have a formal move discussion after this closes. I have mixed thoughts about your proposal, but I don't want to unnecessarily derail this discussion.- MrX 🖋 01:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Right now the title looks like a descriptive statement of fact, as if it really exists, so this should be done quickly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Maybe belongs in some article somewhere but as a standalone, not so much.--MONGO (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Why? Which article? SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Peter Strzok § Reactions. This subject is already covered there, and there is not enough content to warrant a standalone article. --Bsherr (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: plenty of sources to build an NPOV article. But either rename or make clearer in the first sentence that it's a conspiracy theory. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. The title and lead need a change to include "conspiracy theory". -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, FBI secret society (conspiracy theory). X1\ (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: I don't see a problem with this as a standalone, or combined within another wp article as a section. X1\ (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2019 (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.