Deletion of Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina

Comment: There are barely any reliable sources.  Most of the links are to blogs and even forums.  Not to mention major  issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: I'm seeing a lot of keeps, that mainly come with recommendations to salvage the article and try to revive it. But looking at it's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_theories_regarding_Hurricane_Katrina&action=history edit history, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the past couple of months in actually editing it, so I'm beginning to doubt why so many people are interested in it now, after editing interest has seriously dwindled down and the article still looks like crap. Maybe some of you folks that are pushing for it's revival to salvage it should |be bold and make some of these changes yourselves
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: but I think it needs a major rewrite. Much of the article seems to give |undue weight to |fringe theories, but I do see some sources like The Guardian, Nature (journal)|Nature, Time (magazine)|TIME, CNN, and MSNBC. I think there should be an attempt to salvage the article based on any sources deemed |reliable. We have other articles on alternative theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=alternative+theories&fulltext=Search. This article could be seen as a |POV fork, although it may also just be a |spinoff of the Hurricane Katrina article. Moving certain theories to this page instead of the Hurricane Katrina article might not be a good effort to represent a |neutral point of view, although having this article could be seen as an attempt to represent views fairly. It seems like the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations article exists to debunk various theories. We have the articles Titanic alternative theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think the rumors about the levees in New Orleans may be notable, as they were widely reported in the mainstream media in the U.S. It looks to me like some of these theories are significant and have been published in reliable sources. The title of the page "Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina" could be seen as biased, but at least the word "conspiracy" isn't in the title
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT||WP:FRINGE||WP:RS||WP:POVFORK||WP:SPINOUT||WP:NPOV)