Deletion of Titanic alternative theories (2nd nomination)

Comment: yeah, they're sourced, but per  and , we need not be devoting an entire article to this. And as Mgy401 1912 noted, I do have Talk:Sinking_of_the_RMS_Titanic#Proposed_text_on_alternative_theories|a condensed version - complete with one reference per theory - ready for inclusion in one of the other articles on the ''Titanic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I have posted a thread on the sources at Talk:Titanic_alternative_theories#Sources. Some of these "theories" have received some coverage. For example the coal fire, http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22titanic%22+%22Coal+Fire%22. The pack ice and the mummy may also be notable for inclusion. The others should go, I think, or only be briefly mentioned (there's still http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554121/Revealed-Titanic-was-doomed-before-it-set-sail.html). As most of this material is not mergeable (clearly ), I'd vote either delete or keep. There's already a mention in Titanic, Titanic#Alternative_theories. I'll wait and see if the article improves
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Individually, I would agree, but as a group of alternative explanations, they are notable, because, well, there are a group of them that some people still take serious and get coverage.  Please note, wp:undue says ''Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them'', so doesn't really apply here.  If you wanted to devote half the article on the Titanic to these theories, then it would.   seems to say you CAN and SHOULD create this content as a separate article (see the example section, or Paul is dead as an example
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)