Deletion of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

Comment: per Nate. This also appears to fail 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: the theories themselves are reprehensible, but they pass  beyond a doubt. The conspiracies are being discussed and debunked internationally, by very reliable sources. Discussing a notable fringe theory is not a POV or UNDUE problem
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Virtually anything passes  these days. There is more to consider than just the GNG, though (see the "presumed" part of GNG), and this very clearly falls under  and  and, I dare say, the usage of common sense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOT||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Per result of equivalent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Aurora shooting conspiracy theories; suggesting the government and Israel wanted to make a point, or some commentator in Cincinnati, a bunch of stuff involving LIBOR (really?) and Zionists think these hold water is just beyond . It's a tragedy that happened with real deaths, not an excuse to make up fairy tales. These articles just need to be taken to the trash on sight at this point. And just because they get commented on under the rumor effect doesn't equal notability, but an echo chamber
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: We should not give those whackos more Attention with an article as they already gained enough attention this conspiracy theories are ludicrous also this is only mentioned in the news and so  might Apply here also  might apply as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOT)

Comment: because there is enough coverage for , and we ''do'' document  in a  manner, without .  If anyone doubts the seriousness of how deeply this sort of fringe theory infects the human psyche, let them consider that four of the top 8 auto-completion results on Google refer to conspiracy, actors, conspiracy video and hoax.   Upgrade to '''strong keep''' because keeping this sort of stuff hived off from the main article is good for the main article.  And clearly this is not a fork, as it stands right now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE||WP:FRINGE||WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: This meets . Newsworthy, even if I totally disagree with the conspiracy theorists. Plus, this article would be able to keep some pressure off the main article with regards to conspiracies and allegations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: While the page about Australia's Port Arthur massacre (Australia)|Port Arthur massacre has a small section about conspiracy theories, I think that is still too much. Maybe one sentence on the main article is enough, but this article up for deletion is just a page of ringe, even if it is sourced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:F)

Comment: per .  This article is very bias and should in the least be merged with the original article covering the incident.  There is no reason there should be an article dedicated to this.Special:Contributions/71.95.82.119|71.95.82.119
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I agree with PurpleBackpack on this one as this article seems very bias in nature and as stated above it fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The closing admin should make sure to throw out all of the  and  arguments being used above because the editors clearly do not understand what those actually say. Yes, the conspiracy theories are untrue, that's why they are conspiracy theories. But their inaccuracy is irrelevant. They have received significant coverage all across the board and this makes them notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Per . This is crap despite passing . We don't need this nonsense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:GNG)

Comment: per , these theories are so marginal that even covering them in a separate article is too much weight. Passing the GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: as creator and per Mrwhoohoo. The topic easily passes . I'm not sure how editors are basing their claims that it's "marginal" or "fringe" when they're attracting significant coverage in reliable sources around the world. I've tried to avoid undue weight  to these admittedly crazy theories, generally by only mentioning each in a sentence or two. The comparison with the Aurora shootings is weak—these conspiracy theories have received much more attention. Finally, I think extended coverage in the main article ''would'' be , so restricting the conspiracy theories to a standalone article is better in line with policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:UNDUE)