Deletion of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories

Comment: This articles exists only because of the highly unusual nature of the incident, a large commercial flight disappearing without a trace (so it is not comparable with other "Flight X conspiracy" article, which would be wp:otherstuff anyway). This created the flurry of "theories" in the next few days following the event. As things have become a bit clearer, with the plane having run out of fuel over the Southern Ocean, most if not all the "theories" in the article have been superseded. If no wreck/black box is recovered, it is possible it might become a mystery in the future, à la Amelia Earhart. However, we are not there yet, and having such an article in anticipation of such a phenomenon would be  (and a separate article would then be motivated only if it would fulfil the requirements of Wikipedia:Content forking#Article_spinouts:_.22Summary_style.22_articles and Wikipedia:Summary style). Special:Contributions/Victor_falk|''walk
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I do think that we could make a mention of the various theories in the main article in a 1-2 line sentence, but this article is primarily original research. The difference between this article and similarly themed articles such as 9/11 conspiracy theories is that so far the MAF370 RS are fairly few and far between whereas the 9/11 theories have multiple, multiple sources in books, news outlets, and the like. There might be some justification for a full article in the future, but right now this is just far  for its own entry. I'd close this early myself, but I would like to see a bit more consensus- although I do think that this will likely be snow closed early as a delete unless someone can pull a Hail Mary out of their hat
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: full of  and non-notable fringe theories
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.''  A bunch of lazy journalists churning out wingnut ideas does not qualify as scholarship, and I don't care how many other dingbat conspiracy theories Wikipedia hosts. Perhaps those articles ought to be be Scrutinised too and marked for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: as per . The numerous theories have a single source (or two, if they are lucky) backing them , who do little more than barely touch on the details before poking fun at these off-the-wall theories. None of them are extensively referenced, nor referenced seriously. The other flight theories brought up by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: At least two of the "theories" are not sourced, and appear to be  ("Meteor strike" & "Wormhole") &nbsp;~Eric:Special:Contributions/71.20.250.51|71.20.250.51
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: In general the content is |verifiable and is covered in |reliable sources.  Do I think some of the various theories (like, oh, I don't know....the black-hole or alien-abduction) are so implausible that they are cannot pass |general notability, violate the spirit of |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, were espoused by people not regarded as aviation experts and can be filed under a combination of /PS|Fringe theories & ? Yes.  I do think a title-change is in order, perhaps something along the lines of "'''Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories'''" since all we have at this point are theories and not all of them involve a conspiracy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:IRS||WP:GNG||WP:INFO||WP:FRINGE||WP:RSOPINION)

Comment: There are clearly many references from reliable sources showing that the  is satisfied
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: almost all these conspiracies are based on a few "experts" getting airtime in the media based on pure speculation and limited evidence. a lot of keep !votes use  when conspiracies relating to JFK and 9/11 have persisted in media coverage have persisted for years. yet the missing MH370 has been weeks. there is also no criterion for getting a "conspiracy" onto this list. and they may not even be conspiracies if in fact one of these turns out to be the real reason for MH370's disappearance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: as per the reasons stated above. A few of these theories seem to be  and the style doesn't seem to help, either. I agree that this topic ''may'' merit its own article once all the details about the crash is confirmed, but since everything is all speculation at this point, there's really no need to have this. Special:Contributions/96.48.151.67|96.48.151.67
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: this article would be fine if it was more historic.  It is now closer to a Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons|biography of a living person.  These demand no original research.  As time passes, I believe that cited |NFRINGE are credible reasons for inclusion.  The balance must be between promoting ''current fringe theories'' and documenting ''historic ones''.  At the moment all theories are ''living''.  The |NFRINGE is to document ''fringe'' activity and not advocate for it.  Also the ''fringe theories'' are typically used to describe alternatives to academic theories as oppose to alternate versions or speculation on events. Special:Contributions/71.19.161.130|71.19.161.130
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE||WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: Subject appears to meet the . The article in its current version (much different then the version at the start of the AfD), is well sourced and |verifiable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:V)

Comment: per Wnt and Carrite.  This is not an endorsement of ''any'' of the theories - just their |notability as fringe theories.  The article could use a lot of eyes, and a lot more edting, which I am sure it will get
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: or '''Merge''' to main article — Don't forget about those ''reliable'' sources in the article. Please have a second look at |SOURCES, |GNG and kindly skim through the other "Template:Conspiracy theories|Conspiracy theories" available on Wiki. Seriously, you will find this as a worthy Keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SOURCES||WP:GNG)

Comment: per . The fact that a reddit comment is used to explain one of the conspiracy exemplifies the lack of reliable sources. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Most !votes have missed that this is a stand alone list.  applies and we should consider the topic of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories not specific entries. The references currently in the article shows the subject passes . It doesn't matter who believes of disbelieves, only have s written about it showing notability. As to individual entries, the criteria for inclusion is decided for each list and should be discussed on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories. This list will likely be trimmed down.  applies. I rarely give credence to conspiracy theories, but it is a Conspiracy theory|cultural phenomena that cannot be made to go away by deleting articles on Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:NFRINGE||WP:RS||WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: as unencyclopedic and  material, that hasn't received anything close to 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Reading through the delete votes, it seems like people want the article gone because it's filled with ridiculous ideas. That's an understandable and expected gut reaction. The thing is, inclusion of things on Wikipedia isn't based on an educated assessment of their validity (otherwise the delete votes would be pretty spot-on). Inclusion is rather determined by whether or not the thing received adequate coverage. We rely on the editorial departments of secondary sources to dictate what we include here, rather than our own opinions of the material (our editors just edit text, rather than make those types of decisions).  says that if "at least one reliable secondary source has commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed," it can be included. In this article I see references from CBS, NBC, Christian Science Monitor, and CNN, to name a few, so it would seem the criteria has been met. Again, our own editorial assessment of a fringe theory's possible accuracy (or inaccuracy) doesn't factor into questions of its inclusion here, for better or worse
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)