Deletion of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories

Comment: example precedent : John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. However, an article with a topic such as this is quite ripe for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Whether the theories are plausible or not is moot. What matters is that they're reliably sourced (Chicago Sun-Times? Wall Street Journal? CNN? Sounds good to me) and that they're notable enough to be encyclopedic (which the references usually do, as in this case). It's tempting to go into the whole |"Elvis lives! 9/11 was an inside job! Insert other conspiracy theory here!", but let's ignore that for now.  says "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence" for it's very first sentence! Judging by the previously listed sources, I think these count as "significant opinions", even if they do seem a little harebrained. The lede for  also seems to back this up. Sorry if I seem to be spamming guidelines, but for something like this, it seems necessary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE||WP:FRINGE||WP:CONTROVERSIALFACT)