Honestly, do we need every crackpot conspiracy theory recorded for posterity? I don't even think this stuff is notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. (Crackpot? I agree. However...) A well documented article that expounds on a section covered in Conspiracy theory. A well-enough known conspiracy theory that it probably deserves an article. Anyone searching on this theory will find more information presented in our one article than they would in a dozen random web pages on the topic. SWAdair | Talk 11:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, crackpot I agree (refer to the page's talk..). However, an issue that has taken hold in South Africa as a significant problem (note Mbeki's remarks) needs to be comprehensively discussed and rebutted in the open. There are a vast number of significant AIDS conspiracy theories and they are verfiable and encyclopedic. This is not to say that the article is currently a good one. It is not. In fact, in my eyes, it is currently a competitor for the worst Wikipedia article ever. A new article must rebut every conspiracy theory and it must not contain ridculous statements about the military-industrial complex... - Aaron Hill 14:36, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Definite keep. But I dislike the use of the term "conspiracy theory" because it has acquired a connotation that I think is disparaging and POV, so I'd like to see it moved to a better title. Everyking 15:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What would you suggest? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- How about Origin of AIDS (Minority opinions) or something like that? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. A notable enough conspiracy theory, and people need NPOV sources of information on these kinds of things. I think Wikipedia is just the place for that. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 16:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Any chance this thing could be cleaned up a bit while we're at it? It hurt my eyes to read! Is there any way we could combine this with AIDS myths and urban legends, perhaps have them all thrown into the actual AIDS article? -- BDD
- Keep. Even incorrect beliefs can be notable. However, as part of the cleanup BDD suggests, I recommend removing most of the red links, especially to individuals whose only fame is that they originated one of these crackpot theories. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Nutcakes, yes. But nutcakes with some currency in some populations. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but possibly merge with AIDS myths and urban legends. -Sean Curtin 00:52, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Merge with AIDS myths and urban legends into a Controversy surrounding AIDS article. Eric Urban 01:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, remove PoV. Widespread paranoid or crank conspiracy theories are best neutralized by objective reporting. Wyss 23:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Widespread theory deserving of its own page. --Librarian Brent 02:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Regardless of "validity", this is a notable theory worthy of documentation on Wikipedia in a NPOV matter. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Spinboy 08:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:44, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and merge with AIDS myths and urban legends. --MPerel 19:59, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Where else can you find about conspiracy theories, where they are presented as such, and not presented as the truth by some nutter? -- --PoleyDee 23:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "'Keep'" I disagree with the article completely but it needs to be here -- Wwahammy's vote. Wwahammy, you can insert your signature and a time stamp by typing four tildes: ~~~~ . It's especially important to do it when voting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)