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 of the debate was no consensus to delete (just about 50% keep, 50% delete). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina[edit]

(Was named Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories)

Non-encyclopedic. Do we really need to make an article about some whackos' pet fantasies? (No.) Yath 06:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can people voting to delete please be aware that deleting the article is easy, but may make it harder to control the material's appearance in other Katrina articles. There's a certain wallpaper bubble effect. Rd232 19:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since an anon user insists on repeatedly deleting the global warming section, falsely claiming the material is in tropical cyclone, I post a link to a recent version which includes it here. Rd232 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've caught BD's inability to read since its covered right here [1]. Perhaps if you didn't just keep reinserting the text while ignoring the talk page discussion entirely you wouldn't have been mistaken. --24.165.233.150 18:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe a modicum of Wikiquette. You've now gone deep into Clintonesque parsing to suggest that the articles I've cited mean something other than what they plainly intend, in order to support your own ssertion that no one has even alleged any connection between Huricane Katrina and global warming. Attacking the abilities of your fellow Wikipedians is a rather silly strategy to counter the simple truth, that various individuals have in fact ascribed particular unnatural causes to this event. Why, exactly, are you so determined that such allegations should not be documented? -- BD2412 ^talk 18:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been very specific, no one of notability has asserted that Katrina was influenced in any way differently or more extreme than other recent tropical cyclones. To argue that point you keep providing externals to articles that say things like "Is the rash of powerful Atlantic storms in recent years a symptom of global warming?". There is no singling out of Katrina. The text is covered in Tropical cyclone, and I object to your claim that I am "determined that such allegations should not be documented" as I started the section in the Tropical cyclone article. I have strongly opposed duplicating the information elseware because the people who know what the heck they are talking about edit Tropical cyclone and make sure the text is accurate, while people who want to pump up excitement over conspiracy theories edit 'Alleged causes'. The text related to global warming that has spent most of its life on that article is embarassingly inaccurate. BD, I didn't start out intending to say anything rude at all to you, but since you continue to just simply repeat things which are untrue and you fail to respond to any of my points at all I must simply conclude that you are unable or unwilling to read. If you're going to worry about wikiquette, you could help me restart my assumption of good faith by not ignoring my talk page discussions requests. --24.165.233.150 19:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now responded to your talk page statements. I've never suggested that anyone is claiming that Hurricane Katrina was affected by global warming in a way that other hurricanes wouldn't be. As you just pointed out yourself on the talk page, Katrina is "mentioned to hook readers" in articles about global warming - ergo, people (some of them notable) have, for whatever reason, invoked this hurricane in an effort to raise the issue of global warming. The point of the debate is not to "pump up excitement" over such theories, but simply a) to document that they exist, which is a notable sociological phenomenon, and b) to give them a place apart from the various Katrina-related articles in which they originally sprang up, and where they will spring up again if this article is deleted. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused by your position then. If you are not claiming that people say Katrina is special, what is wrong with directing readers to our coverage on Tropical Cyclone? We discuss all other weather related factors which are common to all such storms there already. In any case, Thank you for your reply. --24.165.233.150 20:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Katrina is special, in that it is a particularly devastating hurricane, and therefore something of a magnet to which people have attached their ideas (just as 9/11 was no different from any other terrorist attack, except for its location and scale, and the Kennedy assassination was no different that any other shooting, except for who he was). I think we can agree that, had it been a category 2, or had it just fizzled out after brushing through Florida (and knocking down most of the trees in my yard), Time Magazine would not be writing articles with headlines like "Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?. Also, I think there a are a few particularly apocalyptic references by persons such as Ross Gelbspan (referenced below) who suggest that Katrina was worse than previous hurricanes because of global warming, and a sign that things are going to get worse still. The fact that some people will now believe these theories who would not have before the hurricane makes these specific allegations a notable point of discussion. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I assume the real causes are outlined on our Hurricane Katrina page. I don't think we need this assembly of idiotic quotes from fringe figures. Capitalistroadster 06:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although interesting reading, keeping this article would only encourage them. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, non-encyclopedic personal rant. — JIP | Talk 06:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a personal rant. Weak delete (not strong). — JIP | Talk 04:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Some wacko's like Fred Phelps deserve articles dedicated to them. But their wacko ideas don't. --rob 07:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per rob. --Apyule 07:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep. This is not a "personal rant" (at least not now) as there are a number of different contributors. It is eminently NPOV. The entry is a fine social document, recording a technically advanced 21st century society's attempts to come to terms with a disaster, using superstition. Why delete it? Wikipedia is not paper. I will put some climate change stuff in when I get a minute. If the page is not deleted. Robinh 07:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we need to keep the public unaware of Zionist influence on the weather. Klonimus 09:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep or merge to article on Katrina itself. Robinh is right - as distasteful and far-out as many of the links may be, I agree that this page has some merit. The article itself is NPOV and it would need to be watched to make sure it stays that way, but that's no reason for deletion. Peeper 09:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rather amusing ideas, even if it's a bit hard to believe. But humans are like that. It's important to see what the more eccentric people make of this. Haoie 09:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I moved the material from Political effects of Hurricane Katrina because I didn't think it belonged there; or if it did, then it was better as a daughter article as Political Effects is getting big. People ask these questions, and that's worth documenting. Between alleged causation by government, God, and global warming, there's seems to be a good NPOV article here. Unfortunately, someone keeps deleting the GW stuff, which is therefore scattered around instead of being in one place. The resulting article looks more wacko than it need be, especially as the original intention of calling it Causes and bringing in the metereology of Katrina, with the "alleged causes" as a subsection, has got lost. Rd232 10:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but only if more attention is given to reasonable causes like global warming and less to wackos yelling about divine intervention (as they do every time they stub their toe). One wacko sermon is pretty much the same as another, I don't see why we need a list. Last Malthusian 10:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, but cleanup is needed. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia won't be credible if articles like this are kept. -- Kjkolb 11:49, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolute nonsense. You could as well blame it on the Flying spaghetti monster. --Hullbr3ach 11:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP and RENAME to Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories. Eclipsed 12:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was there before, but I moved it to "alleged causes" because (as some had pointed out on the talk page) calling "divine causation" a conspiracy theory is bizarre and POV. ~~ N (t/c) 16:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. The cause of hurricanes is meteorological. Unprovable factors that may be behind that are best called theories. Conspiracy is technically just correct, but commonly may be found odd. Perhaps Alleged theories is a useful compromise. (Can a theory be alleged?) -- Soir (say hi) 18:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Capitalistroadster--nixie 12:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is too specific a topic; also agree with Capitalistroadster Besselfunctions 13:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this page seems to chronicle actual public statements no matter how wacky and I'd rather see this still separate than included in the main article. I just won a bet that within a week nutbars would start claiming conspiracy theories about this natural disaster. Sigh. Agree with Eclipsed that it should be moved to Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories; I would be bold and do so myself if it wouldn't mess up the VFD process. 23skidoo 13:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete as it is nothing more than standard superstition, i.e. nonsense. --IgorTrieste 14:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is stupid. If this is not deleted then I fear that WP will be punished by supernatural forces with a gigantic DDOS. Paul 14:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, with definite move as per Eclipsed. I don't really like the idea of setting precedent by keeping this around, and the word allege by meaning implies that its views are asserting truth, even if the body of the article approaches NPOV. With its current name, its lack of GW information specific to Katrina renders it POV towards the non-meteorological end. (Weather control has its own page and gets on the article, for example. Why not GW?) If someone notably blames Katrina on the Flying spaghetti monster, that can go in the new page too. Bring it back to AFD at some later point, we'll see if any of the causes listed has become any more likely. -- Soir (say hi) 14:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Delete, having thought a little more upon the issue I really do wonder if, despite its semi-notability in as much as people making comments, in today's culture any event that causes disaster can and will be picked upon by certain groups of people and interpreted in certain ways. If people were directly claiming to have divine insight, or firsthand direct knowledge of this sort of thing, then it would be notable. As it is, perhaps there could be a Commonly alleged causes of natural disasters with an archive of links before and including Katrina. I'm not going to make it though. ;) -- Soir (say hi) 23:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Why no GW?" - because someone deleted it several times, saying it should be elsewhere. As I said this, unbalanced the article even more. But I'm disappointed at all these deletes, which strike me as rather thoughtless in taking the article at its current face value instead of considering what it could be, and its relationship with other Katrina articles (notably the advantage of isolating the crap which will be repeatedly added as sections and harder to get rid of when there isn't a dedicated article). Rd232 19:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just had a look at that. There really is duplication, which is bad, but the point really does need to be made, since GW is a noted theory as well. Trying to make everyone happy, I redid the introduction. Opinion here looks 'no consensus' to me at current, but note below Kewp comment, wait for some time to pass, it'll probably end up back here again. -- Soir (say hi) 21:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: It's not a rant, but barely encyclopedic, almost BJOADN, but there are people out there who are bad jokes. I can't wait to see what the religious nutjobs blame "indecency" on next (High Interest Rates? The 1919 Chicago White Sox? The Theory of relativity?) Karmafist 15:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Give it some time to develop; more crazy theories will come out of the woodwork in the coming weeks. If it still sucks by then, it'll deserve deletion. I don't see what's wrong with NPOV documentation of semi-notable lunatics. ~~ N (t/c) 16:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no way this deserves an encyclopedia article. Amren ^(talk) 16:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Impressionistic article title about a current event. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Absolute fringe lunacy. There are nutjobs blaming everyone from UFOs to Satan, and from homosexuals to Texaco. Don't waste the server space. -PlainSight 17:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this will be irrelevant when the next big current event du jour happens. Kewp 18:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent point: the contents of this page have nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina itself.
• Keep for now. I've seen how many edits are being generated on this Hurricane and it's related articles, just do RC for half an hour with the related pages in your watchlist: black at the top!. Personaly I find it quite awe inspiring to see us record history this way. Now is not the time for calling a deletion discussion on this article. Alf ^melmac 20:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the original (albeit somewhat reluctant) creator of this article, I must explain why it should be kept. Really, there are two pertinent questions raised by these theories: 1) are they notable enough to deserve inclusion in the encyclopedia?; and 2) if so, do we want them in the main articles addressing Hurricane Katrina, or its impact on society, politics, and the economy? I suggest that they are notable, in line with the three different 9/11 conspiracy articles (9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel), as this was an event on par with 9/11 in terms of the destruction wrought and the likely impact on society. Notable people (even if they are "fringe lunatics") have made assertions about the cause of the devastation, and each individual claim is likely to have a believing audience in excess of what we would require for, say, a disk jockey to be notable under WP:BIO. These claims, therefore, will have a real impact on the world, whether it be to stir radical Islamic suicide bombers to action, or to stir a subset of American voters to desire changes in social or environmental policy. If there is no separate article, these theories will end up being housed in the main articles on the effects of the hurricane (where they were to be found before I removed them to their own space). That leads to the second question: if this information should be in Wikipedia, where should it be? Arguments have already been made for the inclusion of much of this material in the articles from which it originally came, but I draw the line here - if material that is clearly "fringe" is nevertheless notable enough to merit inclusion, it should have its own place apart from more mainstream discussions of this topic. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. The decision to delete can best be made after some time passes, and it keeps the information in one place.--Curtis Clark 20:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, there exist conspiracy theories about Katrina, but these are non-notable. Sdedeo 21:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is little notable content in this article, and anything notable can easily be placed on the main page for Hurricane Katrina. As far as “they deserved it” statements, these can probably be found about scores of natural disasters and don’t warrant their own article. Do we really think that this is the first time people have made such statements? If we include this article, then certainly speculation/non-notable/non-verifiable articles such as Good things about Hurricane Katrina should be included, right?. Paul 21:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Abstain, for now. Notable subject/responses, unfortunately. El_C 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I guess, but we need a Wacko conjecture category. The article should be renamed because it implies a small amount of credibility. — RJH 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC) — Delete — Changed my mind. This is just rubbish. — RJH 21:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also in favour of the category being titled Wacko conjecture. El_C 21:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and Comment The word alleged implies speculation and the objective of Wikipedia is to be a source of knowledge not of irrational speculation. Is there a need to speculate on mindless reasons for the passing of this hurricane? Will we allow an alleged causes article on every event in history? Hurricanes are an act of nature, not a divine punishment. This kind of article detracts greatly from the credibility of Wikipedia. Senseless articles tarnish Wikipedia's objective image. Furthermore is there notability in alleged causes? Is every idea, every thought conceivable to man notable? If so then this article should be kept and nothing should be deleted ever again Joelito 21:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are supposed to cover what is notable, regardless of whether we find it disagreeable, irrational, etc. If, for ex., a Kuwaiti Minister states that it was one of the soldiers of Allah, that is a notable statement from a notable figure. El_C 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment here, ... I don't care to actually vote but I wanted to point out that by reporting on the attributed speculation of others Wikipedia itself isn't acting as a source for speculation. We report on many crackpot things, and this is okay because we are not advocating the position just reporting it. --24.165.233.150 21:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Joelito 21:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely, and if you wanted to start a campaign for banning current event coverage (and sending it to wikinews) I would join in and support you. At the same time, it is of factual and historic, and thus encyclopedic interest that various notable people have said various things... so like any other encyclopedia we report on these facts. Perhaps you could argue that these pieces of information are too trivial to include, but I think the majority would disagree there at least right now. --24.165.233.150 21:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectful disagreement with El C. I would imagine statements of that type occur every time a natural disaster takes place. Ministers of tiny countries aren't blazing a new trail here. If his statement is notable, put it in the Hurricane Katrina article itself in an appropriate section. Otherwise, shall we start digging up what government officials and clergymen have said about the last million natural disasters? Paul 21:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point; I'm going to observe the discussion a while longer before issuing a definite vote. El_C 21:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reporting widespread craziness in itself is not nonnotable... really depends upon how many people say it and how long they last. If it stays at this name, Global Warning definitely needs to be listed, and probably first. If the article is only intended to be crazy theories, then it's probably kind of POV by its inclusion and would need a better name. Conspiracy theories probably doesn;t work based upon the religious claims. DreamGuy 21:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Global warming isn't an alleged cause of the hurricane, unless you want to trace the sequence of events back to the butterfly's wings. Paul 22:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Global warming is an "alleged" cause in the sense that notable individuals have made statements claiming (ergo, have "alleged") that it is a cause, including this editorial from the Boston Globe by Ross Gelbspan, this statement by Germany's environment minister, Juergen Trittin, and this one by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I hate to be rude BD, but for a law student you've demonstrated a profound inability to read. We argued this before, and still not a single one of your citations is talking about Katrina specifically. For example look at the quote from the German minister: "these natural events". I'd agree that we could list global warming on the page if someone indeed claimed there was something special about the specific storm. But no one is, which is a good thing because the scientific community would rightly call for their head over such a claim. --24.165.233.150 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not the issue whether anyone's said so explicitly, though it probably has been. It has been strongly implied, and referenced, and the issue raised. That's enough that readers will come to Wikipedia expecting an answer, and we should provide one. Rd232 23:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • We do provide one, it's answered quite clearly on tropical cyclone. In fact, the text which you've supported is misleading, and is loaded with weasel words to cover its factual inaccuracy. I do agree that the public has been, to an extent, mislead with respect to Global warming and Katrina... but we do them no service by repeating their misconceptions. In any case, the place to disscuss this is on the talk page of the article at least until it is deleted. I posted there hours ago, you might want to reply. --Gmaxwell 03:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 24.165.233.150, please read the Gelbspan piece. The opening line is "The Hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming," and which later states, "Although Katrina began as a relatively small hurricane that glanced off south Florida, it was supercharged with extraordinary intensity by the relatively blistering sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico." Are you sure you want to stick with your statement that "not a single one of your citations is talking about Katrina specifically"? Is Gelbspan talking about some other Katrina? -- BD2412 ^talk 23:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
          • • BD, I've read it... he also attributed every other major weather event in the last year (about eight events if I'm counting right) to the same cause. I don't argue if he's right or not, the point is that even he makes no claim that there is anything specific about Katrina. It's just another item to add to his list. --Gmaxwell 03:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, let's be clear then - if your point is that no article has said that this hurricane and only this hurricane was affected by global warming, then you're right, none of them say that. However, the point of the discussion is that a number of people have cited global warming as an alleged cause of stronger storms in the context of discussing this hurricane. You would have to parse the referenced articles pretty narrowly to suggest that the respective commentators were not linking global warming to Hurricane Katrina at all. It's as though Big Bird said "A through Z are letters of the alphabet", and your reply was that he was not claiming "G" to be a letter of the alphabet because he did not specifically say that it was (or because even though he said "G" while reciting the alphabet, he said the same thing about the other letters). -- BD2412 ^talk 04:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
                • So why aren't you importing all the other information on the formation of hurricants from Tropical cyclone into the causes article? Surely NOAA has mentioned all the standard effects and mechanisms in their reports before, during, and since this event. By your logic everything that has been mentioned which is also true about all others must be repeated. I might suggest you see how far you get with interting a description of how the eye wall works into Hurricane Katrina. --Gmaxwell 06:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Irrelevant. You're disputing the actual causes of Hurricane Katrina, but this discussion is about "alleged" causes. Taking it out of the GW context may make it easier to understand - suppose Dr. Phil (who has a fairly large audience that believes the things he says are true) were to go on TV and say that the storm surge that broke the levee was actually caused by a meteorite that landed in the Gulf of Mexico right after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, and but for that meteorite, the storm surge alone would not have been enough to break the levee. Now, suppose that Dr. Phil also argues that scientists have been warning for years of the potentially devastating effect of a meteorite impact on the earth, and that the government could have develepod technology to protect us from meteorites. The actual science of meteorites hitting the earth is irrelevant to this discussion, because the discussion is about the influence of the claim. Dr. Phil's "followers" will change their behavior or their priorities based on the belief that a meteorite hit the Earth, and something could have been done about it (or could be done to prevent the next one). Now, the claim itself may or may not spur people to argue about the actual effect of meteorites hitting the Gulf, and proponents could bring up every other non-Katrina related meteorite alleged to have hit the Earth. But what makes it notable is that there is a belief shared by a significant number of people that this particular Hurricane reached its deadly apex because of a meteorite, and now perhaps we should change our policies because of it. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Global warming is, at most, an alleged reason for the hurricane's severity; whether or not there would have been a weather event named Katrina without global warming is not the subject of debate. Keep the science cruft to a minimum, put the relevant info on the page Hurricane Katrina, and lets leave the notion of an "alleged causes of..." page behind us. Paul 04:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE non notable G Clark 22:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Judeo-Christian weather-cruft, unless the title is changed to "Hurricane Katrina apologists", Then I'll vote to Keep. Hamster Sandwich 22:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't Judeo-Christian Weather Cruft a segment on the 700 Club? Karmafist 23:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some conspiracy theories may turn out to be true e.g. Watergate, some conspiracy theories, even if widely regarded as erroneous, may gain sufficient currency to make them encyclopedic e.g. Apollo moon landing hoax allegations. However they do have to gain a certain currency to become encyclopedic, as Hurricane Katrina only just happened it is too early to say this. This sounds like the ravings some preachers might come out with after any natural disaster. PatGallacher 23:03, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Nut-jobery has a place on Wikipedia, from Apollo moon landing hoax accusations to Time Cube to Flat Earth Society to John Titor to Lyndon LaRouche to David Icke to 9/11 conspiracy theories to Illuminati to Elvis sightings. — Phil Welch 00:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not informative, perhaps it coulde be retitled. Possible causes of Hurricane Katrina.(Divine retribution is silly) A good idea might be to talk about regular hurricane cycles and the possiblitiy of us entering the 1500 year cycle. Newbie222 00:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The same issues that are being raised in this article are also being raised in the major news media today. Furthermore, I would hope that Wikipedia would not succumb to recording only the "majority viewpoint" on any subject, without at least also recording that some attempted to use this disaster to further their own particular dogma or beliefs. Not shining the light on the crackpots lets them continue to flourish in the dark. Anonymous Contributor 01:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete The only worthwhile content here is the global warming discussion -- which is handled elsewhere. All else is non notable. ThreeE 02:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as encyclopedic response to irrational (and rational) theorization: we sort, classify, and report. This is no different than 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the other things cited by Phil above. --MCB 04:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY STRONG Delete. Unless there is a shred of evidence (sorry, GW theories are too speculative), this is pointless. Katrina was a normal (strong, but hardly unique) storm that is only special because it hit land. Had this died in the gulf, no one would have paid any notice.--El-Spectre 09:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that this is a very good point. There is nothing special about the causes of Hurricane Katrina. --Apyule 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Rama 12:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this article is being refined, and it allows insight into some feelings the public may feel / topics under discussion (i.e. there are articles on the conspiracy of JFK and 9/11, which are considered valuable, so on that note, I would consider that this article has place). Shadowfax0 11:18, 6 Sept. 2005 (EST)
• Redirect to Tropical_cyclone#Formation. I personally dont think wakos with conspiracy theroies are encyclopaedic. JKF and 9/11 are acts of man, attributing wheather to divine punishment is medieaval. --BadSeed 16:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not for an ecyclopedia, choose one of the other wikiprojects
• Speedy Delete, why isn't this nonsense gone already? Next they'll be trying to keep "Bush is an alien" articles.Gateman1997 19:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See David Icke. You may find the subject matter insane, but if it's NPOV and notable there's no real reason to delete. ~~ N (t/c) 19:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
    • Information has to be more then NPOV, it has to be truthful, not some loony fabrication of hurricane apologists. And your reference to David Icke doesn't wash. He's a real person. Albiet a total whackjob who probably shouldn't be free on the streets, but he's a real verifiable person. Nothing on this VfD is verifiable or real. Just a bunch of loony stuff that is better suited to Weekly World News.Gateman1997 23:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wasn't going to vote initally since I think the information is encyclopedic but too silly to include in the primary articles on the storm. But since making that decision I've been involved in editing the article, and I've come to conclude that the primary editors working on it seem to prefer that it exists simply so they can publish inaccurate positions without their edits suffering the editoral oversight of people who care about accuracy whom normally avoid the ratsnest of conspiracy theory articles. --Gmaxwell 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC) I need to retract my statement above, it appears the other editors on the article were not advocating a particular broken version of the global warming text as I had thought but rather they just wanted the text included at all (partially because they thought it would help the article survive VFD). My primary concern was, and remains, factual oversite over this material. Since the alternative to the existance of this article is the same material spread out over several larger ones, I think the goal of factual accuracy would be best served, for now, by the continued existance of this article. Thus I now vote Keep although I hope the article goes away during a future rewrite of the current event material into encyclopedic material. --Gmaxwell 03:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've suggested a compromise on the article talk page. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We should keep info on what notable groups have said about the causes, but we can do so at political effects. Even beliefs of religeous causation have a political dimension. Johntex 20:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the material on this page is moved back to the Political effects of Hurricane Katrina article (where I had already conceded that it has a political impact, see Talk:Political effects of Hurricane Katrina#Conspiracy theories), then this article should probably redirect to the appropriate subsection of that article. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm now convinced that there is too much material here to cover it all at "political effects". We still need to make sure that we are covering only the claims of notable people and groups - one wacko with a web page does not need to be quoted. I would suggest that the bar should be set at whether the person/group being quoted is worth their own Wikipedia article or not. I would also propose the exception to this rule be anyone intimately involved in the hurricane (such as an evacuee or a rescue worker). There comments add the dimension of documenting the beliefs of the people closest to the disaster. Johntex 15:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Any bits of this that are infact encyclopedic can/should be placed (if they are not already) in more approprate articles. This one is just bait for the nutjobs. Dalf | Talk 21:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete silly and nonencyclopedic, and a de facto POV fork. Anything of use (such as the global warming issue) should be incorporated elsewhere where it is subject to far more peer review. Postdlf 21:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia should be a source of knowledge when it comes to what large groups of people/notable persons believe, whether or not those beliefs are correct. I don’t believe in poltergeists and I’m not sure about parallel universes but I want to have well written articles that deals with those topics in Wikipedia. --Tsaddik Dervish 22:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just read that some people believes that poltergeists are caused by "the Hutchison effect" while others believe it is a form of "psychokinesis generated by a living human mind". I still don't believe in poltergeists but it was, nevertheless, interesting to read about all that stuff. --Tsaddik Dervish 22:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What Wikipedia needs is an article on Alleged causes of hurricanes with possibly one or two of the Katrina-specific allegations there if they are still notable a year from now. Caerwine 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge section on supernatural causes back into Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. It's important to document how religious leaders and others have tried to exploit this natural disaster for political influence.--The Bruce 23:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears as if a majority of "keep" voters are citing the same reason for keeping the article: that its contents might be stupid but they still warrant inclusion. I agree with the principle this argument is based on--stupidity is often notable and encyclopedic--however an article entitled "Alleged causes of..." is a sanctuary for garbage that, as someone else mentioned, escapes proper oversight because it's in a garbage article . Paul 01:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons - Sempron 02:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While this is a NPOV and encyclopedic, I don't think the religous or technophobic nutjobs who think this deserve to have this article in here. Waste of space. --Admiral Roo 10:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We've got Kennedy assassination theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories, so why not this one? Some of this stuff is fairly amusing, and having this article may help keep the crackpottery from creeping into the more serious Katrina articles. Anyway, having some weird stuff is what makes Wikipedia fun. *Dan* 12:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I fail to agree with the "waste of space" comments on this article, since we are wasting hard drive space by pushing a VoD for this article. Somebody also brought up an interesting point about the title of the article, "Alleged causes of". Can anyone think of a better title for an article that talks about GW conspiracy or weather control theories? The current title doesn't seem to bother me much, since the keyword "alleged" suggests that these causes are only proposals to explain the nature of the hurricane. I also cite the earlier arguments in regard to having articles on 9/11 theories and what not. Besides that, if people hundreds of years access this article (if this hurricance becomes a key event in the bubble-popping of America's supposed arrogance: given that civil order and basic services in New Orleans were reduced to that of a war-torn third world country), they should be able to read about every detail in relation to this event, including the wacko conspiracy theories that arised. But anywho, that is my two cents, and waste of one or two VALUABLE kilobytes of Wikipedia storage space. ahem... KEEP --Ted 12:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note - the article was originally named Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories, but was moved to its current title because neither global warming nor divine retribution could properly be categorized as a "conspiracy". Personally, I would go for Hurricane Katrina fringe theories. If, however, this article is deleted, the weather control part (which is the only true "conspiracy theory") should be moved to Conspiracy theories (a collection), right under 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami conspiracy; global warming and divine retribution comments will go back to Political effects of Hurricane Katrina, to the extent that parties are using the hurricane to push policy changes; the part about victims suggesting that the event was divine retribution for their own sins (or a test of their faith, or the like) would go in social effects of Hurricane Katrina, and this title would probably be redirected to Political effects of Hurricane Katrina#Speculations for the cause of Hurricane Katrina. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

    That sounds like a good merge/redistribution. +sj +

    Sounds good, yes, but I do worry about the ever-lengthening "Political effects" article - which will eventually have to be broken up into into sub-articles anyway. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete or at least Rename. The only reasonably encyclopedic claim here is the global warming one, and that's covered elsewhere. The "divine retribution" stuff isn't being stated by anyone truly notable, so it shouldn't be here. You'll ALWAYS have zealots saying that a catastrophe of any magnitude is divine retribution. There's no "Claims of Alleged Divine Retribution of the Kennedy Curse" section, but if you scour the web enough I'm sure you'll find some lunatic website claiming it's God's way of punishing the family. At the very LEAST this should be renamed. Global warming can at least be considered alleged, but not divine retribution. An allegation is defined right here on wikipedia as a statement of fact by a party in a pleading, which he or she expects to prove. People claiming that this is "divine retribution" aren't expecting to prove their statement is true at all, anymore than they try to legitimately prove existence of God, Satan and Heaven - hence the term faith. jcomp489
• Keep this information somewhere per WP:NPOV. Opinions with significant support (including notable nutcases) need to be included. No opinion on renaming or merging. Kappa 01:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the point above about global warming being the only notable part of this article; that argument can be made about hundreds, if not thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of weather events each year. The subject is therefore unencyclopedic. Dottore So 01:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Keeps this stuff out of the serious articles, scribble space for the kids. Delete it a year from now when no one cares anymore. Stbalbach 02:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; you said it so much more clearly that I did above.--Curtis Clark 04:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My guess is that 40% of Europeans, 60% of Americans, and 80% of people in the Middle East believe that an omnipotent, all-knowing god either made, or let Katrina happen. And these people aren't talking about rain on their wedding day, or natural disasters in general - they are talking specifically about 'entity Katrina', that has no relation to the science of weather-related phenomena. Why would Wikipedia care what those people think? Beliefs are important in themselves, irregardless of what the reality of a situation is. Maybe even more important. They shape the future of humankind, as beliefs always have, whether they're religious, philosophical, based in science, or whatever. Even the most hardcore materialistic determinists that edit Wikipedia should realize that. Another reason to keep the article is that when fanatics of different denominations read/edit the article they will (hopefully) be exposed to a sober, enlightened atmosphere, where they can't help to read that their opinions are (very) similar to the opinions of 'those crazy' Jews/Christians/Muslims/etc. --Tsaddik Dervish 05:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep and possible rename. It's my personal POV that the theories outlined in this article are bullshit. But, unfortunately, this nonsense is notable and has wide enough currency for Wikipedia. As others have mentioned, it could use a better title, mostly because the current title is a bit illogical. We know what "caused" Katrina: an atmospheric heat engine fueled by high ocean surface temperatures. Since I'm not a big fan of the term "conspiracy theory" in an encyclpedic context, I suggest something like Alternate theories about Hurricane Katrina. Anyone's welcome to come up with a better title. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 05:57, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. My POV is also that there wasn't anything supernatural about Katrina. However, you (as many others), seem a bit confused regarding what is meant by 'cause' in a religious context. The religious person may very well agree with you that what "caused" Katrina was an atmospheric heat engine fuelled by high ocean surface temperatures, but note that the physical 'cycle of events' were proceeded by divine will. That we are mistaken when we think the shadows on the wall of the cave are real. --Tsaddik Dervish 06:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have renamed it back to Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories. Consensus appears evenly split, and many suggested a renaming. -St|eve 06:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The count so far: For keeping, we have 27. For deleating, we have 32. Sorry keepers, you're so far outweighed. --Admiral Roo 11:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • No need to apologize, the information doesn't seem to be in any danger. Kappa 11:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admiral Roo, I just don't see where keep votes are "so far outweighed." Right now, the opposing views are separated by 5 votes out of over 60 votes cast, yielding about 46% to keep and 54% to delete. Wikipedia:Consensus notes that "consensus is interpreted as something closer to supermajority" in general and suggests "two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" in particular. Quite frankly, this is one of those issues where there are strong feelings on both sides, and where it may just be impossible to ever reach a consensus. There votes cast include 5 strong/speedy keep votes (and I was not even one of those), an equal number of strong/speedy delete votes, a smattering of weak keep and weak delete votes, and no fewer than four voters who have changed course, in different directions no less. I think a number of people have hit on the best basic formula to deal with this: keep for a few months, until the current surge of interest in these theories has ebbed, then quietly trim them down, move them to a more general conspiracy theories page, and make a redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk

I did not emply that it is so far as in they are far behind, I emplied that so far they are behind. --Admiral Roo 19:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your construction, then. Nevertheless, your comment, "Sorry keepers, you're so far outweighed" does imply that the article is headed towards not being kept, which is simply nowhere near the case based on the current count - there is no consensus to delete.-- BD2412 ^talk 19:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That is ok. I don't always make myself clear. --Admiral Roo 02:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Don't encourage this strong/weak vote silliness. It's one editor, one vote. --Yath 15:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just pointing out that there is a broad range of opinions here, not a clear-cut preference for one side or the other. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deeceevoice
• Very stong delete, there are so many reasons to delete this, not least because it is entirely unencyclopedic. Martin 20:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only good thing I can see about it is that it is NPOV, but unencyclopedic. Nick Catalano (Talk) 21:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since some of these theories are believed by many people (especially the global warning one). Compare to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NPOV, encyclopedic, verifiable. Sam Vimes 08:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A lot of information here looks fishy. The "Assertions of the use of weather control technology" section almost looks like science fiction to me. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keepGeni 00:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense but maybe Merge the a few of the facts to other Katrina Pages --Aranda56 05:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ethereal 10:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, but the article needs to clearly distinguish the scientific (if heavily-contested) debate on the relationship between global warming and extreme weather events from claims of supernatural causes. It may be better to create an article on Global warming and extreme weather events because the debate includes assertions about droughts and forest fires as well. [2] Alan 12:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The simple fact is: These issues are valid, existing references surrounding this event. While they are 'conspiracy' based, it is a valid reference to sociology and psychological states of a section of the US population. An open information based encyclopedia such as this is used by researchers of all types. Why remove information simply because it might not 'jive' with what you would want it to. I can certainly see the worth articles such as this have in providing research and insignt into the state of affairs from social to mental in this day and age.
  • ^{Unsigned comment by 4.244.90.65 (moved down from top of page). -- BD2412 talk 17:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete silly article, the GW material doesn't fit because of its title
• Keep. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide what theories are correct, but to at least provide a place for plausible ones to be written and fleshed out. If not, this stuff will clutter up the main articles. -Timvasquez 01:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a second, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I does base itself on truth and correctness. It is not a place for the creation of new ideas, as in WP:NOT. --Apyule 02:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Regardless of the validity of the theories themselves, they are (at least most) prominant and an interesting look at society's reaction to the event. The theories may not prove true (like the witch trials of Salem, MA), but the reaction is, so I think that this is of academic use. --Kolzene 02:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia can be a place to document historical events, including responses to those events. As long as the theories aren't presented as fact, there's no harm in letting the article stay, documenting other theories. AySz88^-^ 06:25, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Kaldari 16:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't like the somewhat disparate arrangement of items here very much, but the content is clearly notable. It is the role of Wikipedia to document widely held theories, whether we think they're true or not.--Pharos 20:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The third comment above makes a lot of sense. History is not only defined by dates and occurances, but by collective states of mind, as well. Factual information captures only so much. This page, being distinct from the main Katrina article, reflects deep currents in American culture--the debate over and between science and religion and persistent, widespread mistrust of the government.Prophet840 23:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)prophet840[reply]
• Keep. The article does a great job in illustrating the range of people's reactions to the event, and also demonstrates just how devoted to their religious/political beliefs people can be. It does not present theories as fact, or theorise on new tangents, it just documents the response of people to the event, which is encyclopaedic. --Aramգուտանգ 05:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Petri Krohn 10:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Human wackiness is interesting in and of itself, at least to some people. To argue that the article should be deleted because it is "not encyclopediac" sounds like a tautology. I think that at least some of those taking that position may be confusing an article about the wackiness with an endorsement of the wackiness as being factually correct. At its heart, that viewpoint is akin to saying we shouldn't have articles on Nazi Germany because the Nazis were bad people and their views were clearly wrong, or we shouldn't have articles on abortion or creationism because (one half or the other of) the participants in the debate are clearly wrong. (And yes, I recognize that there are distinctions that can be drawn between those cases and this one, but I don't think those distinctions change the basic fact that some of the "delete" crowd are engaging in the same sort of magical thinking -- if we delete all mention of the evil content from Wikipedia we can delete it from the world -- that motivates those who would like to purge articles on things like Nazis and abortion). -- John Callender 17:44, 13 September 2005 (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.