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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note that this is not a nomination to delete content so it is a separate consideration from all the other AfDs. This is more procedural because the article title is a violation of WP:SYNTH because it invites a connection between three disparate topics that are only connected by the original research of Wikipedia editors. Normally, this could be handled by WP:PROD, but because it has already been nominated for deletion twice, the correct procedure is to AfD the article.

Content has already been successfully spun-off to the following three articles:

1. Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina
2. 2005 levee failures in Greater New Orleans#Conspiracy theories
3. Hurricane Katrina and global warming

I suggest moving the edit history of this article, which should be preserved at Wikipedia since the content is good and preserved to Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina. The article name, "Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina" should be deleted from Wikipedia as an obvious invitation to make an originally researched collection of disparate ideas. Moreover, the name itself and it is not a natural search term so the redirect should not be preserved. Attribution can be made in edit summaries at the other two articles to satisfy the requirements of the licensing. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing left to keep if all the material is moved out to sub-articles and other articles. I will dispute, however, that the article is any more of a magnet for original research than any other article. I personally went to great lengths to insure that every contention in the article is sourced to a book in print of durably archived reliable source on the Internet. I also doubt that it matters whether the search term is unnatural, as we have many articles at "unnatural" titles with redirects incoming from more natural (but less encyclopedic) titles. Someone searching for information about claims of divine retribution or global warming in relation to this disaster would have come to this article one way or another, while the information was in it. bd2412 T 00:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue was not that the content was original research. The issue was that including these three ideas together is a kind of synthesis lumping. There is no relationship whatsoever between levee-breaching conspiracy theories and divine retribution proposals. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The history will have to be kept somewhere accessible and linkable from the various spinoff articles. That having been said, delete the present title per valid OR concerns. So long as all the material is preserved, there's no need to have an "article" that is just a bunch of ((Main)) links. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming someone doesn't revert the bold divesting of the article, a dab page would probably make the most sense. –xeno^talk 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Except it really doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic (or common) search term. Are people going to be looking for "alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina" very much? I just don't think that this is a reasonable disambiguation and, in fact, the disambiguation itself may require a bit too much in the way of original research to determine which ideas rise to the standard of "alternative theories" that "regard" Hurricane Katrina. For example, "global warming" isn't an "alternative theory" at all, though attributing Katrina's strength solely to global warming is a nebulous proposal. What about people who think that modern meteorological explanations for storms are incorrect? Obviously, they take exception to the "mainstream explanation" for hurricanes in general and Katrina in particular, but I think most reasonable people would see a problem including them on the same page as these other ideas. There's just too wide open a door for this grab-bag topic and essentially no reliable sources that I've seen which connect these disparate ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The article does get a handful of views. Whether they're coming from people typing it in, or the link from the template (which you've since removed), or direct links, is unknown. –xeno^talk 13:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The article contains (or contained, before it was split out) material that some people would be interested in reading. I'd like to point out, also, that the reason this article was created in the first place was that people with agendas kept trying to jam all of these various claims into the main Hurricane Katrina article, which was leading to substantial disconcertment. I and a few other editors made a serious effort to put these various theories somewhere where they could be documented, well-sourced, and framed in a neutral tone. bd2412 T 13:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  Fringe ideas need to be dealt with carefully. We do not want to create coatrack articles. We can cover notable fringe ideas in their own articles, but I think we must avoid creating one "garbage can" article where we toss in a bunch of notable, or non-notable, fringecruft. If these ideas cannot stand alone as an article, or find a suitable place in another article, they should not be in Wikipedia at all. One cannot make a notable topic by merging together a bunch of non-notable topics. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  First, I would say that they are individually notable enough to stand on their own, given the rather high profile figures and media reports of both the global warming and divine retribution claims. Seeral editors have tried to work in a section alleging the use of weather control technology, but this has failed for lack of any notable person or reliable media outlet discussing it. I am not wholly adverse to the remaining pieces being separated, but if they are individually capable of being maintained as articles, why not put them under one heading? bd2412 T 13:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's no content here as it has all been moved to other places. I agree it should be deleted, possibly speedy under the appropriate criteria for content-free article pages. Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really have a strong opinion on whether the name is prima facie inappropriate. However, the history needs to go somewhere. I suppose it could be merged with supernatural attributions article, but some kind of redirect or dab (not necessarily at the current page title) would be more appropriate, imo. –xeno^talk 13:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit history could be preserved by moving the current page to an archive of Hurricane Katrina, which would save it from being tied to any particular spinoff article, since the global warming and divine retribution articles have equal claim to it, as does the blown-up levees section now on the page about the general levy failure. bd2412 T 13:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - While I do understand and sympathize with the rational for creating this article, the idea was flawed. We should not create "dumping ground" articles for crap that does not belong in some other article. In this case, the result was a hodge-podge article that lumped all sorts of disconnected material into a single article that did not have a proper topic or focus. I suggest that the "Katrina was God's wrath for the sins of the world" claims (currently spun out by SA into Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina) should be merged and re-worked into the article on Divine retribution, which places the claims in their proper context (as modern examples of a time-honored religious take on calamitous events). The conspiracy claims about the levies and what not should either be ignored per to WP:UNDUE, or should be worked into an article specifically about Katrina conspiracy claims (assuming such an article passes WP:FRINGE). Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Mr. Blueboar says it eloquently. Compendium of hooey. Where the edit history is kept is not an AfD question. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the valuable content has now been moved to Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Alternative theories exist for everything, and although they are occasionally notable enough for the Encyclopedia - They are not de-facto notable. Most of what was attempted hardly merits a footnote. None of it, either individually or in the aggregate, comes anywhere close to meriting an article.99.141.241.60 (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Blueboar summed it up well. All of the relevant content has been moved to the appropriate article, so deletion appears to be the way to go.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have now proposed to merge Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina into Social effects of Hurricane Katrina. Since the development and spread of alternative theories such as divine retribution is essentially a social phenomena, perhaps this article is best merged there as well. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah... attributing a disaster to God's wrath isn't a social phenomenon... it is a religious phenomenon. I think the problem here is focusing on claims about the event. After all, those who view the world through religious eyes see most natural disasters and other calamitous events as examples of divine retribution. Katrina was hardly unique in this. To understand the claims made about Katrina, you have to understand how the claims fit into a religious pattern. You need to discuss the claims in their proper context, I think they should be discussed in the Divine retribution article, and not in an article that is focused on Katrina specifically. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious phenomena are social phenomena. In any case, there is nothing that prevents the merging of portions of this material to two articles. Also, some materials outside of the religious aspect were initially covered by the general article; both the levee conspiracy theory (as a point of contention in the wider conception that the government was wifully unhelpful to minorities) and the upsurge of interest in global warming can be characterized as social effects of the hurricane. bd2412 T 15:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to get at is this: I don't think we should discuss religious claims in any article that is focused on an event... we should discuss religious claims in an article that is focused on religious belief. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina is the article on the event. Social effects of Hurricane Katrina is already an article secondary to the event which has spurred the effects discussed. bd2412 T 18:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But the "Social effects" article is focused on effects that occurred because of Katrina... while the religious claims reflect a religious belief as to what caused Katrina (or why Katrina occurred). That is different kettle of fish entirely. Basically, I don't think mentioning the religious claims fits the topic and scope of the Social effects article, while they do fit the topic and scope of the Divine retribution article.

In any case... all this is best discussed on the talk page of the various articles. I think we agree that the article entitled Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina (the subject of this AfD) should be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2010 (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.