Deletion of 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories

Comment: per nom. I see very little encyclopedic value beyond  at best, and even then I am skeptical
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: a very well written and researched article... most of the ''delete'' votes seem to be from people who are personally offended by any mention of other people's anti-Israeli or anti-American views (no matter how ridiculous they are) and wish to suppress them from being broadcast. Or they just don't like conspiracy theories. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: as a hodgepodge of only vaguely related topics.  Trying to unite foreign accusations of US intent to occupy Haiti, Mr. Robinson's horrific statements with regards to Satan, strange allegations of organ harvesting and paranoid delusions about earthquake making machines into a single topic under the banner of "Consipracy Theories" is bordering on .  In teality all this "article" is, is a dumping grounds for minutiae that won't stick in the 2010 Haiti earthquake.  If their inclusion in the main article is unacceptable, their retention in this shady little  is unacceptable as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: as meeting  due to the sheer number of |sources over an exended time (and thus not subject to ) that prove notability.  This is not one conspiracy theory, but several, much like the birther movement.  There is nothing wrong with this article that can't be fixed with |normal editing.  Like many articles about concepts, one event or statement is notable, but ''in toto'' becomes notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:RS||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: yes, my !vote counts thrice) per , , and just a bad idea in general. In honesty, I expect that this article (Conspiracy theories about BLANK) to be written about every major event in the forseeable future, because in this day and age, crackpots always get their day in the limelight (thank you very much, "news" networks). This works for events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina only because it is now well after the fact, and whole books have been written on the subjects. I still would rather see most of them go, but when something is well-discussed among many people and the subject of news articles, books, TV documentaries, and even movies, it deserves mention. When our best sources are tabloids and state-run news, we need to seriously think whether or not this is advancing Wikipedia's aim of furthering mankind's knowledge. Spoiler alert: it is not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: The folks in the discussion so far have argued persuasively (on all sides). I am voting "weak keep" because information about conspiracy theories is possibly useful notable no matter how bizarre they are, and the available sources get us beyond some of the issues with  for the Wikipedians involved with the article. ''However'', we must make sure that the article gives the impression of merely reporting someone else's conspiracy theories and why they could be considered notable. Avoid language that gives any impression of actually promoting such quackery
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)