Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminati symbolism

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. Deor (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati symbolism

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

This speculative mixture of original research and synthesis with fringe sources, in-universe conspiracy theory babble, and speculation has no place here. Orange Mike | Talk 05:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why this article was created is because I symbolism interpreted as being from some secret society is becoming a trend on the internet and websites like MTV, Hip-Hop artists and other artists are also often referring to the use of symbolism of this. I personally don't believe in these conspiracy theories, but I believe that the influence of the conspiracy theory itself on popular culture is not insignificant, popular games like Tomb Raider are actually using references to the illuminati too. Currently, there is too much nonsense spread about this by christian mentally retarded people (sorry for the insult, but if you believe in reptillians ruling the world you are not completely sane), so I tried to find sources like MTV referring to the phenomena which get's popular among young viewers. I actually want to delete all my own additions now not based on sources.

I have asked for people offering sources debunking the claims that it stems from the illuminati, but nobody could help me and I need some time to find appropriate sources. But if it get's deleted it's a waste of time. Bokareis (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reliable sources can be found discussing the Illuminati, conspiracy theories about the Illuminati (where discussion in Wikipedia is split between the main article and New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Illuminati), and the Illuminati in popular culture. It does appear that reliable sources discussing its symbolism also can be found, but the material presently in this article is likely better suited for the pop culture article. (The sources for this article are generally reliable; most seem to focus on pop culture, but I wouldn't call them fringe.) - Location (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pop culture article currently only contains some references to the illuminati in popular culture in general, but it doesn't focus on the symbolism, it's interpretation by conspiracy theorists and what sceptics etc. say about the use of illuminati symbolism. I made an article for the subject as this symbolism is quite common when you read about the illuminati and references to it. Bokareis (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge usable sections to Illuminati, Illuminati in popular culture and New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Illuminati. The premise of the article seems to be an attempt to document illuminati symbolism in pop culture, but many of the sources are obviously force fitted to suit the premise, e.g. a rehash of David Icke's beliefs, a rehash of conspiracy beliefs, and a collection of rumors that have only the fabled illuminati in common -- stretched to fit the ostensible subject of "symbolism". The few genuine examples of illuminati symbolism's influence on pop culture can easily be absorbed by the existing articles named above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What I expected to see is an article that discusses the actual symbolism of the real, historical Illuminati of eighteenth century Bavaria (supported by high quality academic sources). What we got was a mix of conspiracy theory, pop-culture misinformation, speculation and original research (especially WP:SYNTH)... marginally supported by very unreliable sources, if supported at all. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of the article was to describe what an increasing amount of young people talk about in pop culture, which is what they call illuminati, which indeed doesn't have anything to do with the historical Illuminati. There was a paper from university written about the subject among Danish youth which I couldn't open. I also wanted to add an author of a book in which he describes how antisemitism is the foundation of modern illuminati symbolism conspiracies, but as it will get deleted I won't add it anymore.

This was in fact my first article so I tried to write down what was said in the newspapers, but I had a little trouble how to describe it. As the article in the Daily Mail for example said: "Adorning her head with what appeared to be the sign which is said to represent the group The Illuminati, Kyle Sandliands girlfriend accessorised the emblem, which she wore upside down, with a black hooded cap." I cited what was said here, is said to represent, but I didn't know how to exactly describe this. Is said by who? Conspiracy theorists? The article in the Daily Mail isn't really clear about it neither. I also described the counter-arguments, but it was very hard to find freemasons describing the counterarguments of allegations against them that they are behind some big "secret evil conspiracy". Bokareis (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bokareis... sorry that your first attempt at an article is problematic... I will share bits of advice: first: don't take this nomination personally... even if the consensus is to delete. All of us were new editors at one point... and most of us have written articles that got deleted at some point (I know I did... before I learned what sorts of articles would be accepted, and how to write them to ensure they would be accepted). Second... it is often a good idea to start a new article as a draft in your user space. Then you can make changes, seek sources and get input from other editors without the risk of having it deleted before you are really ready. And then, when the draft is in good shape, you can shift it over to full Article space. I can help you with all that if need be. We welcome your future contributions... even if we end up not keeping this contribution. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any useful content, as per LuckyLouie above (though I doubt that much is salvageable). The article as it stands is basically WP:OR/synthesis, and lacks proper sourcing of discussions of the subject matter as a concept. In conflating modern conspiracy-theory led claims about a supposed modern 'Illuminati' with material concerning the historical Illuminati it violates WP:NPOV, and several of the assertions made are also arguably violations of WP:BLP policy - giving entirely undue prominence to claims made by highly dubious sources about named living individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I start to understand how Wikipedia works. I 'm trying to merge all the material based on facts but I agree with you that my article as I see it now indeed contains a lot of content which is not factual. I 'm merging the factual content with the illuminati in popular culture article. Bokareis (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2014 (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.