Deletion of 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories (2nd nomination)

Comment: for procedural reasons and substantively.   is the place to appeal, but not here.  There are plenty of sources and information now, even if not at the time of the first AfD.  Let it go for a few months, when with more perspective, |consensus might change.  But the close was proper
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV||WP:CCC)

Comment: The nummber of times a page has been viewed is in no way evidence of notability.  This is discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions|Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically mentioned at .  ''Keep'' and ''delete'' arguments should address Wikipedia policy which relates to notability and wether the articles contents can be verified.  Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:POPULARPAGE)

Comment: When the admin who closed it orignially said it should be re-evaluated at a later date, I'm betting they were thinking of something a little farther off than 6 days after the last one closed. No matter how good faith the nomination is, it still reeks of . Wait a few months, then lets look at it then. Until then, we just don't have the perspective to gain any sort of consensus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)

Comment: In which case , almost by definition, would apply
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)