Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Numerically, this is pretty close. Snottywong's tool comes up with 41 delete, 37 keep. My manual count was close to that. There's a big friendly warning box that hints at vote stuffing, but interestingly enough, the tool's list of potential SPAs is also split quite evenly.

But, of course, we all know this isn't vote counting. The real deal here is that we're looking for rough consensus. Some approximation to, "Most people are generally in agreement, even if there's a few dissidents", and I don't see that. Reasonable arguments were made on both sides, so there's no magic, "I'm going to discount half of one side" brush I can use to synthesize a consensus.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notoriety Snood1205 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Conspiracy theories are very interesting and intriguing. This plane has been missing for almost a month now and it would really deserve its own conspiracy page. I found most of the theories very compelling - it will be waste deleting the page. And merging the page with the main article is not a good idea as that article is FULL already. Please keep it. Meganesia (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Those advocating deletion need to explain why this article is any more worthy of deletion than the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page and the 9/11 conpiracy theories pages. Too many opinionated and self-important editors trampling on the hard work of others. BlueSkyMining (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to main article- May I begin by first questioning, what are your grounds for deletion? You have nominated this article, but you have not described as to what criteria it would meet in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Nonetheless, having examined the article it seems that it consists of largely unencyclopedic content with a few somewhat bizarre theories banded together from web related sources. On the other hand, conspiracy theories surrounding this are going to receive large coverage due to the unexplained course of events and the then inconclusive ending of it all. Therefore, I recommend it is merged into the main article on the topic. Thanks. TF92 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice towards recreation at a later date 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". 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 Emily Hearart. However, we are not there yet, and having such an article in anticipation of such a phenomenon would be wp:crystal. walk victor falktalk 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Think you mean this Emily. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator gave no rationale to delete, and the new article is notable given the media coverage of the event. ScienceApe (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete ..."it consists of largely unencyclopedic content with a few somewhat bizarre theories banded together from web related sources." Exactly. Conspiracy theorists have their own sites in plenty. Shouldn't Wikipedia be factual? --Ampwright (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See my keep vote below. We have articles about conspiracy theories in other high-profile air crashes. This is is not per se non-notable. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to main article – This topic merits a sentence or so of mention in the main article. It certainly does not merit its own independent article.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, see below. We do have separate articles on exactly this sort of thing for other crashes. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that. I am simply saying that this does not warrant its own separate article.  It can be summed up into a sentence or so (perhaps a paragraph) and inserted into the main article.  It could be a (small) sub-section there.  That was the point I was trying to make.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You said "topic"; I was pointing out that the existence of other articles means this sort of sui generis argument isn't enough by itself to support a deletion, because that's what I thought you meant. My feeling is, since it will likely grow into something big enough for its own article, we should just leave it where it is (and it's already big enough, I think). Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I used the word "topic" – perhaps not 100% the best choice of words. Maybe "information" is a better word choice.  That notwithstanding, I clearly was not advocating deletion.  My post is clearly marked as Merge to main article.   Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not encyclopedic, and now obsolete anyway. --Lasunncty (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is encyclopedic. The fact that some of the conspiracy theories given are not does not scale to an argument for deletion of the entire article. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment — At least two of the "theories" are not sourced, and appear to be WP:OR ("Meteor strike" & "Wormhole") ~Eric: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, that means you delete them from the article, not vote to delete the article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why this was a "comment" and not a "delete". The article is locked from editing by IPs (see my entry on talk page). IP=71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC) (a.k.a: ~Eric)


 * Strong delete - I agree with Lasunncty, this is hardly worthy of Wikipedia, mostly not theories with a rational basis, and NOT encyclopedic. I never vote to delete because I don't like the Notability policy. My reasons for voting for this deletion have nothing to do with Notability, though. The fact that I am !voting to delete this article, for the first time I have voted for a deletion, should show how strongly I feel about it. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, see the links I posted below to other articles about air crash conspiracy theories. Methinks you confuse "shouldn't be encyclopedic" with "unencyclopedic." Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Although some of the theories have source provided, but the source itself doesn't provided reliable evidence for their theory. This topic looks more like hoax rather than fact and the article nature also not a disscussion of hoax. Doesn't seems to be appropriate to merge to main article as well. Tan pang (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Although some of the theories have source provided, but the source itself doesn't provided reliable evidence for their theory." Our editorial policies do not apply to the documents we use as sources, as long as we've decided they're reliable, and some undeniably reliable sources are indeed among the citations, such as CNN, The Washington Post, etc. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete At least two examples of OR, such as the Wormhole theory and Meteor strike. Was leaning towards having a sentence in main article about how the missing issue spawned conspiracy theories, but not sure I would even support that at this point.--MONGO 01:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've said, then be bold and delete those theories from the article (they're unsourced, they won't bite you), instead of arguing for deletion of the entire article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Conspiracies "dismissed as absurd by the mainstream media" seems to blatantly imply the use of unreliable sources, and "This page describes all such" is a fairly obvious example of POV pushing to make this a repository of whatever conspiracy theories exist with no regard to veracity. 8ty3hree (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That can be addressed by a really arcane, difficult procedure. It involves opening up the edit window and ... rewriting the suspect prose. I know it's harder than voting delete, but it's not impossible (hey, it's definitely easier than finding this plane has turned out to be ). Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My main issue was a tabloid article basing itself on YouTube comments. The article seems better and somewhat less randomly thrown together, so I redact my delete opinion.
 * My points about the former article text still stand as it is representative of the whole former article and the haphazard way in which the more absurd theories were compiled. 8ty3hree (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as unencyclopaedic. Kinda amusing, though. If Fringe theories doesn't cover it, then The Twilight Zone certainly does. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. And my keep vote below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The longer the wreckage remains missing, the more ludicrous and numerous these theories will become. Even at present, the press are helpfully reporting plenty of working hypotheses, but no conspiracy is holding sway to any degree, so it's difficult to argue for inclusion for reasons of notability or due weight for any of them. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete It adds nothing to the subject, and is likely to attract even more bizarre, unsourced, unreliable speculation. Maybe they were trying to reach the Nazi Antarctic UFO base? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And your !vote adds nothing to this discussion, either. As for the rest of your argument (the part I assume you meant seriously, anyway), see WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Having revisited the article today, I see that it is now more balanced. I still believe it could encourage speculation, however, I wish to remove my delete comment (it's not a vote), so I've struck out my entry above. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per reasons given by others above--Witan (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Refer to my responses to reasons given by others above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. 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 WP:TOOSOON 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy as well. This will likely gain more coverage in the future, so userfying a copy to incubate and add on to will probably be a good idea. If/when (and I'm betting it's when rather than if) there is more coverage, we can always un-userfy the article and recreate it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We could bring it up to something closer to the quality of the other conspiracy theory articles by, as I've said, actually editing it with an eye towards strict compliance with our editorial policies. This would save us the trouble of deleting and recreating, or moving to userspace and then back. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If we can bring it up "to code" and if this continues to get coverage, I have no true issue with keeping it. My biggest issue is that this is all a little recent and I'd like to have some sort of enduring coverage. I do think it's something that will, so I have no problem with cleaning it and redirecting it with history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't need to give any recognition to loopy crackpot ideas. WWGB (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To advocate for the deletion of an article that otherwise covers a notable subject similar to others we have written articles on because you have some negative opinion about whether that subject should even exist is un-Wikipedian. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing to remember here is that the theories don't have to make sense. What we need is a lot of coverage to show that this is something other than just something that the media is picking up on because news about the plane crash is slow. I'm not saying that some of the theories out there aren't silly, but that doesn't mean that they can't receive enough coverage in the future. Right now it's just that the coverage isn't in-depth enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as unencyclopedic and WP:FRINGE material, that hasn't received anything close to WP:SIGCOV. ansh 666 03:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, again, plus note some of the sources cited. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've noted which parts of WP:NOT I believe that it's falling afoul of below; I looked at the sources and don't believe that they're sufficient. ansh 666 02:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most, if not all, of the delete voters thus far are missing the point! This article is not attempting to describe the reason why  the aircraft went down.  This article is documenting the existence of conspiracy theories about why the aircraft went down.  All the information in the article -- i.e., reports of people espousing these theories -- is verifiable, because the theories really have, or have not, been proposed by various people as documented by the supporting links. (If they have not, then those particular theories should be removed.)  The article is not attempting to claim that the theories themselves are factual explanations of what happened to the flight.  The article is akin to the article on Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories (Apollo_hoax). The current phenomenon is newsworthy, and conspiracy theories will no doubt continue to proliferate, since the official explanation announced today will no doubt be seen as inadequate and/or untrustworthy by many, given the circumstances well documented in the main article.  These facts about contemporary culture have nothing whatsoever to do with whether any of these conspiracy theories are correct!! Now that we've hopefully cleared up that misunderstanding, then of course any undocumented rumors of conspiracy theories should of course be removed (i.e., if any of the links prove not to support the claim that the alleged theories have been reported).  In addition, the question of whether to merge the content into the main article remains an open one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.187.71 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * — 173.61.187.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Really sad when an IP understands Wikipedia policy better than longtime contributors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Just because there are plenty of sources describing conspiracy theories does not mean that there should be an article on them. The reason the Moon landing and JFK assassination theories pages exist is because the mainstream account and the conspiracy theories are all well established and documented. At this point, with so little information and evidence about what even happened to the flight, the article at best is just a pointless enumeration of various speculations. Even conspiracy theories try to use some semblance of evidence. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 15:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fenix, I think you miss an important point in your argument about why the JFK Assassination and Fake Moon Landing conspiracy theories are ok, but this here isn't.  There's an article on fake moon landing conspiracies. Why? Because that topic is SO notable, stand-alone, and sourced, it's like not funny. Yet many people (including high-level politicians) call that view or topic "fringe". Doesn't matter. It's notable enough. And so (at this point) is this Malaysian crashed airplane and theories that've been put forth regarding it. It's arguably big enough, and definitely sourced more than enough, and meets the criteria.  Regardless of personal feelings or "I don't like" reasons or notions against it. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, those conspiracy theories are regarded as fringe by many people, but there is a fundamental difference between those conspiracy theories and these conspiracy theories. The 9/11 truthers, for example, have a sizable amount of literature, documentaries, etc supporting their claims, and secondary sources documenting their views and activities. The problem with MH370 conspiracy theories is that they are literally speculations from various people reported on news sites to attract views. It's almost a violation of WP:PRIMARY. There is no substantial MH370 conspiracy literature and therefore there are no reliable secondary sources that document and analyze them. I don't like Moon landing, climate deniers, etc either, but there is a very good reason those articles exist that this article does not have. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 15:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying about "more substantial", I get that, and I don't even totally disagree (in a way), but here's a very important point that you and others who are so with "delete" keep missing.  Ok, ready? Here it goes.   It's NOT the specific theories or views that are the issue or the determination for this article's existence, but rather THAT THERE ARE MANY THEORIES, VIEWS, NOTIONS, AND SPECULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON.   Not the views themselves, which I would agree in many cases are borderline wacky or silly.    NOT THE ISSUE OR THE POINT!!!     It's the PHENOMENON that is what is notable...not the individual theories in question.  (Forgive the caps, they were not necessarily meant as yelling but as special emphasis.)    But seriously, do you finally get it now?   Yes, there's a flow and flux in this particular matter, etc, but that does NOT negate the (sourced) fact that the matter (of theories and speculations and fears etc) have been going ON!   The specific ones are not that relevant to the actual point.   And it's become obvious that many editors on here, who are so strong for "delete", are getting matters a little confused.  At least to some extent.   The PHENOMENON is what is notable, not necessarily each individual theory put forth IN the phenomenon.    Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Gabby, you say, but here's a very important point that you and others who are so with "delete" keep missing but actually, they're not missing your point, and shouting won't help you. They get it--there really are many theories that have been going on--that's your point, and they get it that it's the phenomenon, not necessarily each individual theory, where by "phenomenon" you mean, roughly, "crazy theories about this abound, regardless whether I support them".  Now, here's what you don't get:  Wikipedia works on various principles and guidelines, one of which is Notability.  Note the very first sentence after the ToC at WP:NOTE:
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
 * So, if your topic is 370 conspiracy theories, to establish notability, you might start by finding reliable sources that refer to a list of conspiracy theories such as the ones listed in the article. If you can't find such sources, then the article looks suspiciously like Original Research something that is not a valid basis for a WP article. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Going in circles now, and it's tiring, and it's a merry-go-round. No, you and the others DON'T get it, period.   The individual theories or conjectures are not necessarily so notable...but the overall situation and phenomenon (that of various speculations and conjectures) is clearly notable and very sourced. Mathglot...the situation is what is clearly notable...not necessarily each speculation in the situation....simple point. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for the same reasons as Ansh above. Crazy people make crazy claims about every single disaster, but they're almost all extremely quickly forgotten. They just aren't notable enough. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out below, we have similar articles about conspiracy theories related to other aviation incidents. They were hardly "extremely quickly forgotten". Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment As article creator I'm not going to try to stave off deletion of my own article (or at least one where I wrote almost all the content). However, I will ask why this is not notable when the page on Sandy Hook conspiracy theories is. IOW there are not only reliable sources in this article now, there are others that aren't.  Just keep this in mind, closing admin (since presumably no one else will have their minds changed after having voted).  Jinkinson   talk to me  04:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of it just boils down into how much coverage something has received. So far the coverage for this is fairly light, all things considering. It may eventually gain more coverage and merit an article. In fact, I'm actually figuring that it will. Conspiracy theory is fairly big business nowadays, as news outlets realize that they can get people to click on the links, even if it's just to laugh at what's being said, and mainstream publishers realize that people will buy books about conspiracy theories for the same reason. However we have to look at the here and now to decide whether or not there's a depth of coverage. I think it's basically just WP:TOOSOON for an article. I'd recommend userfying it for the time being and re-adding it later on when there's more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Non encyclopedia content and per SIGNICOV. &mdash; "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴᴡʜᴜᴛ? 05:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak argument, just parroting points made above, to which I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge (judiciously) into main article — The frantic generation of conspiracy theories is interesting as a social phenomenon. The phantom mobile phone theory is poignant as it underscores the uncertainty faced by relatives of the victims. I wouldn't advocate merging the full list of loony theories (and how about the flying spaghetti monster, huh?) into the main article, but I think that some of the material on this page can be placed into its own section within the main article. This material makes for a weak standalone article (as it currently stands) and yet, frankly, I see no reason why it ought to be expanded into a more robust article. — Wlgrin 06:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We have standalone articles on conspiracy theories related to at least three other high-profile air disasters, as I note below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - These sources are semi-serious at best. Consider the first few sentences of the Independent article: "Ask YouTube commenters for the explanation behind Malaysia Airlines flight MH370's disappearance (actually don't, that's a terrible idea) and they'll tell you it can be traced back to Pitbull and Shakira's 2012 track "Get It Started". The 'Illuminati' briefly got a break from being in the frame for the world's mysteries, with people drawing comparisons between the club banger's lyrics and details of the plane's tragic disappearance." The boston.com article is headlined "9 crazy conspiracy theories about Malaysia Airlines flight 370". This stuff is basically linkbait: lazy writers regurgitating anonymous social networking posts or broadcasters who know absolutely nothing but need to fill air time and/or want attention. It's all unencyclopedic drivel. If there's anything that has lasting significance it can be covered in the main article.GabrielF (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing that matters about how our sources cover the subjects of articles is whether they do so trivially or not. I think those sources are decidedly taking the latter approach. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep 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 "Conspiracy theories" available on Wiki. Seriously, you will find this as a worthy Keep. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 07:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:HORSESHIT.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to discount this vote as utterly unserious. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete At this point I don't think there's enough actual encyclopedic content for a stand-alone article. Anything worth keeping can be merged.LM2000 (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there will be, even if you delete most of the unsourced crap. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Must be assigned to the urban legends category. Audriusa (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC). Urban legends must also be notable, but now many vote to delete just because the article is about urban legends. Audriusa (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic content. One or two theories can possibly be merged into the main article, but as a whole this article is rubbish. Johnnyjanko (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Re those who are trying to get this deleted simply because it's not "encyclopedic": see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Jinkinson   talk to me  12:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you want: WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTBLOG, and slightly less WP:NOTSOAP, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NOTNEWS. Also remember that articles like 911 conspiracy theiories cover well-publicised, outspoken groups (truthers), not random unsufficiently sourced reddit speculation. ansh 666 16:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This article has some reliable sources, enough to be kept. Eventually there will be more, as people write books and stuff like that. None of your "nots" are valid deletion arguments since this is written like an encylopedia article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (response to a lot of comments of yours; I also replied to your own !vote below) That this is "written like an encyclopedia article" has no bearing on the content - which is what WP:NOT is all about. As far as sources in this article, they are either now WP:RSes, give passing mention to conspiracy theories, or fall under the second category in WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces"), especially this sentence: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Also note that, as some have stated, this is a kind of clickbait from news orgs desperate on viewership (just look at CNN's ridiculous reporting - I often joke that the only people with a clear motive to hijack MH370 is CNN); IIRC, news reports, even the "News reporting" that WP:NEWSORG describes as reliable, are often considered not reliable if they are from something like silly season. Finally, remember that there is no deadline - no need to put out an article like this with so many flaws in it. We can afford to wait to see if some theories persist and reliable sources are published, then recreate the article in the form of the others you mention below. ansh 666 03:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should consider reading NOTTRUTH Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 03:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "That this is "written like an encyclopedia article" has no bearing on the content - which is what WP:NOT is all about." I was responding to people who were throwing around NOTNEWS, NOTESSAY as if they actually had a clue as to how those applied. They are properly employed when people make contributions that read like news stories, essays, whatever. That ' s what those sections of WP:NOT are about. " As far as sources in this article, they are either now WP:RSes ..." In which case we keep them and get rid of the unreliable ones. It's that simple. "Also note that, as some have stated, this is a kind of clickbait from news orgs desperate on viewership" Again, that is not a judgement Wikipedia policy allows us to make. We reflect the world, in all its wonderful idiocies and idiosyncrasies—we do not judge it. "IIRC, news reports, even the "News reporting" that WP:NEWSORG describes as reliable, are often considered not reliable if they are from something like silly season.". "Finally, remember that there is no deadline - no need to put out an article like this with so many flaws in it." No, and anyone can fix those flaws (hint hint). "We can afford to wait to see if some theories persist and reliable sources are published, then recreate the article in the form of the others you mention below."Or we can just apply ourselves to fixing it. Get rid of the unreliable and unsourced stuff, and stick to that which reliable news organizations have discussed. It sounds from that as if you're more interested in trying to prove a point than do what's best for the article and Wikipedia. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You know what, I'm not even going to bother to respond to that drivel. I'm out. ansh 666 03:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that you were terribly in to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * obliterate with orbital lasers operated by aliens brought through a space warp operated by the CIA for the Trilateral Commission, or failing that, just delete it. Filler nonsense put up on the web or in the papers by the media because they don't have any substantial news on the matter is still filler when it isn't clickbait; their desperation is not our notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ours not to reason why. They decide, we report. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Teleport to the redlinked dimension per Mangoe. (That's a delete.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Specifically, a delete without prejudice if good enough sources come through - it's conceivably a topic worthy of an article, but I don't think this is it - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of sheer respect for you and everything you've done Dave, plus your being adroit enough to not take this vote so seriously, no snarky or pointed remarks here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have offended. I do think the content and referencing is exceedingly low-quality. I have clarified that I think "delete without prejudice" - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This article refers to things people said on reddit. That is not encyclopedic at all. Are we going to start referring to YouTube comments next? Ducksandwich (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not follow from the use of bad sources that no reliable ones can be found and the article must therefore be deleted; as I have noted above there are indeed some reliable sources used. Would it be so hard for you to try culling the unsourced and poorly sourced material? Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as I don't consider the conspiracy on this issue stands merit for separate article. Most of the theories seems not to be backed with reliable supporting information either. --G(x) (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Addressed too many times to count. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If I am not allow to emphasize the opinion, then I withdraw my opinion. There are many of them "addressing too many times to count" already. --G(x) (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete there are plenty of conspiracy theories on wikipedia. I myself found this page after searching Wikipedia for this particular article! This site is about collecting all information, even if that is information of what people think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.213.133 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the reasons stated above. A few of these theories seem to be WP:OR 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. 96.48.151.67 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not merge (please). One purpose for this kind of article is to keep this sort of [stuff] off of the main page. While I personally don't care for this article, if it meets notability criteria then it meets notability criteria.  ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RS. The fact that a reddit comment is used to explain one of the conspiracy exemplifies the lack of reliable sources. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, one injudiciously used source is not a reason to delete an article. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that the article should be deleted merely for the references to reddit. Rather, I said that the references to reddit exemplify how there are no proper sources on this topic. Let me elaborate. The vast majority of the sources are just clickbait documenting every random speculation out there, e.g. the article "Flight 370: When facts are few, imaginations run wild." Even the 9/11 truthers, JFK people, and moon landing people all have at least SOME evidence to point to. But as the source says, there is little to no information right now, just imaginations running wild. All of these "conspiracy theories" are at best, trivial speculations and unsupported extrapolations. When there is a mainstream account and actual evidence to interpret, then maybe there will be notable conspiracy theories to document. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 15:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "I didn't say that the article should be deleted merely for the references to reddit." No, you didn't. You said something even less defensible (and not entirely grammatical, either, though I assume that was just an oversight as you typed and retyped. You said "The fact that a reddit comment is used to explain one of the conspiracy exemplifies the lack of reliable sources." Which tells anyone reading you just glanced over the article, looked for something that could make it seem risible, and used it as a reason for deletion, which it isn't. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. To translate to simpler English, what I said was "Having to resort to reddit is indicative of the lack of sources on the topic," i.e., using reddit in itself is not an excuse to delete the article, but rather the necessity of reddit is symptomatic of the problems with the content area. I'm not sure where I'm being ungrammatical. But I explained my reasoning for why it should be deleted in more detail. At first I only made a brief comment because I felt I would only be repeating others' arguments. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 04:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep or merge judiciously  - Article should either be kept, or merged judiciously into Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 per any RELIABLE SOURCES. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of these lack sufficient reliable sources to justify their inclusion. We should only include conspiracy theories which have had notable coverage in reliable sources (either because they're credible or because they have had a significant impact on the event). Being part of a 'here's a list of crazy ideas' article doesn't quite cut it. If any do meet this level of coverage, they can be included in the main article - and only where there is a) a significant number of well attested conspiracy theories and b) significant coverage of the fact of conspiracy theories should we be creating a standalone article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "We should only include conspiracy theories which have had notable coverage in reliable sources". You do realize that undermines any rationale for deletion you could give? Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete As per WP:SPECULATION, which this article is purely of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ging287 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one thing if we speculate. It's another thing if reliable sources do. We don't hold them to our editorial standards. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Do Not Merge ... and allow for alien abduction by Korean Airlines Flight 672. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per reasons argued by Ampwright. 179.57.22.67 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See my response to him. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Having this page here means that this speculation will not show up on the main article.-- Auric    talk  22:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But that by itself has no bearing on the appropriateness of this article, eh? ansh 666 22:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Do we really need a list of the crazy ideas people have come up with? SOXROX (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, we do. Incidentally, I might note that WP:SPECULATION only applies to events that haven't happened yet, which this is not. Jinkinson   talk to me  01:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: We have Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternative theories, TWA Flight 800 alternative theories and Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, after all. No one talks about deleting them, and it seems likely that however this is resolved (assuming it is) there will be conspiracy theories. As for the crazier theories here, well, we can deal with them the way we always have: delete what's not reliably sourced on sight and keep doing so until and unless such a source is provided. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For one who tells others to read WP:AADD, that's a load of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Besides, those other crashes happened decades ago, and the coverage has persisted since. It's simply too soon for this to have its own article. ansh 666 02:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC) (oh yeah, and WP:NOTNEWS applies somewhat too, if any more reason is needed)
 * I invoked the other three articles because a great many people are arguing that we shouldn't have an article on this sort of thing, apparently unaware that those articles exist and have existed for quite some time. To simply suggest I'm leaning on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because of that is facile misrepresentation of my argument, easily refutable by looking at what I'm responding to. You would need to make an argument as to why this article specifically doesn't need to exist, and I haven't seen any good one here (nor do I suspect I'm likely to, the way this is going). Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFF or not, the reasoning by Daniel Case seems legit. According to NFRINGE, a fringe theory is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication. And I don't really buy delete comments like the article being UNENCYCLOPAEDIC and SPECULATIVE in nature which looks to me to be a bit bias and not neutral; and I suppose SOURCES and VERIFY also supersedes those two. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 03:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've replied to those concerns in a different comment above. ansh 666 03:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And now I've replied right back. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW, "decades ago"? Maybe KAL 007, but TWA 800 still isn't old enough to buy a beer. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete way too soon. Will these conspiracy theories persist beyond this initial event? If so, write the article then. All this does now is play into the hands of terrorists and wingnuts. Like those whackjobs who doubt the reality of 9/11 Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NFRINGE. 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 Daniel Case above have more sources, who more thoroughly go through the theories in a serious manner. Kíeiros (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And who's to say this article won't, either, if some people actually have the guts to edit it according to policy? Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If people do so, then I'll change my vote. Until that happens, none of these theories have enough support to be considered notable.Kíeiros (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Because if the black helicopters see this article we're ALL in for it. (And for real, when there was literally nothing to go on you could get plenty outlandish and no one could prove you wrong.)--Varkman (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete 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. WP:FRINGE 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? Waugh Bacon (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. Doesn't apply here, as this is an article about conspiracy theories. Your other, uh, concerns I guess is the right word for it, have been addressed by my other responses. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Strong and unequivocal KEEP - this article is improving. Hijackers wanted to obtain stealth technology from 22 passengers that were employed by Freescale Semiconductor went awry.
 * Keep At least for now. These are hypotheses which stand on their own as current thinking on the topic. They form part of the historical record as it stands at this point. Once a cause is positively determined, this article would be ripe for deletion. Cesium 133 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment there isn't 'delete' a vote without one of your retorts. It's all too much. BTW, and I would appreciate it if you would stop spamming all the responses. I subscribe to the Bin Laden/Taliban theory, that al Qaeda undoubtedly wanted some valuable technology Freescale Semiconductor had. But that theory doesn't seem to be represented. Maybe I should add it myself. ;-) --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see it as constructive replies against those weak delete votes. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 07:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you are implying that all the delete votes are weak, because there are retorts against all of them. I don't see that as being the case. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But all the delete votes are weak. I am about to take a long international plane trip, so I won't really be able to participate for a while as I have been. But I am glad to see my points are being understood by some others (see just below). Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep 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). WP:NFRINGE 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. equazcion   →  11:05, 26 Mar 2014 (UTC)
 * Am not totally against your position here. But isn't this a bit like saying "the world is full of stupid people, therefore any encyclopedia should contain some stupid stuff"? Do we have a "THIS IS BO**OCKS" template to put at the top? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, not any encyclopedia. Wikipedia is unique in that as a matter of policy it doesn't make its own judgment calls in this area. Other encyclopedias can and should decide what's worthy of inclusion in their texts based on the assessments of their highly educated staff. We just don't do that sort of thing here. Whether or not you agree that this is what Wikipedia should be, this is what it is, currently. We echo the sources that we've deemed reliable. Although, do note that we're presenting these conspiracy theories quite clearly as conspiracy theories, and not as facts. equazcion   →  11:19, 26 Mar 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem here isn't reliability, but notability. The media attention to these outlandish claims appears to derive entirely from the lack of substantial news. It seems certain to be the case that some set of more or less well-grounded theories will persist, and those will settle into the main article. But these theories aren't them; they are just the mouthings of random crackpots given a voice for lack of anything else to publish. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely that all these different publications resorted to discussing conspiracy theories on this event because they all happened to experience a shortage of news. Either way, that would be speculative -- unless you have evidence -- but by the sound of it, this is more a determination based again on a judgment of the material, as in, "it's so ridiculous that they must have had nothing else to report." Which again is not our call, and policy-wise it's irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't have a mechanism for weeding out the stuff that may have only made it to the news because of a slow news day. equazcion   →  12:22, 26 Mar 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, it has such a mechanism: it's called WP:AFD! Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - example precedent : John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. However, an article with a topic such as this is quite ripe for WP:OR Group29 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A difference between the pages being that JFK was assassinated about 40 years before Wikipedia was created. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment 1) The article has some out of the world theories such as black hole theory and UFO theory, (No scientific evidence for black holes and UFOs on Earth...yet!). Also, most of the theories are more of a speculation and require more elaboration, which is hard to obtain as these conspiracies are mostly from social media. 2) MH370 has been confirmed by Malaysia's PM to have ended in the Indian Ocean. Probably, sooner or later the plane would be found somewhere deep. When that happens, this whole conspiracy thingy will stop, leaving the article not very notable in which a merge with main article would be favourable. 3) Since someone said this article was improving, what I think could be done is this: Give the some time to allow it to improve, then judge whether it should be kept, merged or deleted. Hz.   tiang  12:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case: Since you said "that means you delete them from the article, not vote to delete the article", shall I delete them now? Hz.   tiang  12:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had thought to do the same thing, but they were reported in a reliable source. I think they could use more detail and probably be combined in one section (Over time, I suspect, they will fade from any discussion and be deleted). Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete For the time being at least. Unencyclopedic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If something is "unencyclopedic", it always will be. Find another argument. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The article currently is keeping the conspiracy theorists off of the main article on the flight. I suggest we keep this one for that purpose until the flight is finally located. After the investigation is completed, this article can go the way of the Dodo.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want a space to 'audition' or 'filter' content for the main article, use the main article's talk page&mdash;that's what it's for. Don't knowingly create a crappy encyclopedia article because it's the path of least resistance.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't split off articles like this to act as tonsils. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that this article is rubbish and should go. I'm simply saying that this article is deflecting the idiots away from the primary article, which is a good thing, as it lowers the number of reversions to the main article. I only suggested retaining this drivel until the aircraft is located, for the benefit of the primary article. That all said, I don't feel that strongly about retaining this hogwash, so it isn't a matter of whether to delete it as much as when it should be deleted. I just wanted to be clear that I'm not supporting this article based upon some notion of merit, only a suggestion to use it as tonsils.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a poor keep argument. We don't have these articles as diversions for cranks, we have them because conspiracy theories are notable and people pay attention to them, even if they shouldn't. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are particularly unpersuasive&mdash;the vast majority of air crash articles don't have – or need – associated conspiracy theory articles. This remains true even if one only looks at air crashes that were particularly sensational, and which prompted similar intense media coverage and speculation when they occurred. See, for example, American Airlines Flight 587 (the airliner that crashed in New York City just two months after 9/11) Air France Flight 447 (a crash in the south Atlantic where search and recovery were hindered by remote location and uncertainties about the cause), or Air France Flight 4590 (the very public trail-of-flames crash of a Concorde).   Inviting the extra maintenance overhead of an attractive nuisance 'conspiracy' article should not be done lightly.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well, by that candle, Category:Conspiracy theories should be deleted, as well as every article within that category. Actually, I'd be fine with that. Either we discard all conspiracy theories or we accept all common conspiracy theories. I'm actually for discarding them all.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "the vast majority of air crash articles don't have – or need – associated conspiracy theory articles.". But this isn't a typical air crash. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge - The conspiracy theories surrounding the flight are very notable and are covered by many international media outlets. Those who want the article to be deleted denouncing the theories as "hoaxes" or similar claims are using their own arguments against them because a conspiracy theory can be a hoax, and when it's notable enough like the ones here, it definitely deserves covering on Wikipedia. Some of them are silly i agree, but many aren't and deleting this article too soon is very immature and ridiculously rushing, since the claims and investigations might develop in the future. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for now - this article would be fine if it was more historic. It is now closer to a 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. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * userfy per Tokyogirl79, topic probably not of note yet. — Lfdder (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unencyclopedic, too much OR, not notable. I could go on but I will save it for when Daniel Case responds Aqmola (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied to sit back and contemplate my former eloquence, thank you very much. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete full of WP:OR and non-notable fringe theories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NFRINGE, and WP:NOR. To me, this is clearly a case of a combination of original research and fringe theories being 'notability-washed', if you will, through the 24-hour news cycle having so little to report on, and thus seizing on the fringe theories of folks with blogs and on forums, in the days and weeks after the flight's disappearance. It would be one thing if the articles were "[extensively] researched" and "serious and reliable", as mentioned in WP:NFRINGE, but most of the discussion of the theories is little more than, "Hey! Look at what this person on Reddit has to say!". I can't see a future for this article which adds any value to the encyclopedia. (And yes, I have read and considered all of the discussion on this page up to now. Thank you in advance.) HOT WUK (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:NFRINGE -- To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it.. The article lists 21 reliable secondary sources that have done those things.--Genandrar (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the article has 21 different reliable secondary sources, which is more than enough to satisfy the general notability guideline.
 * The notability guideline's only purpose is to ensure articles are verifiable, by making good secondary sources a requirement. I find it hard the believe users arguing that this article is "probably" not notable have read the notability guidelines beyond the page title. Any subjective notions about how "important" the topic is are irrelevant once the article has good secondary sources.


 * Personal opinions about the content of the article are doubly irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you think conspiracy theories are crazy ideas. Some people believe them, and we have reliable secondary sources saying they do. Our project should cover them, and their critics.


 * The notability guidelines and the state of the article are also separate issues. If an article is poorly written, has sections that are not sourced or are simply incorrect or crazy, the solution is to fix those problems, not delete the article.


 * I think the only applicable argument for deletion is that the article doesn't have enough new content to justify a separate article and could be easily covered in the main article, with a redirect. That's certainly a valid view, but I don't think the main article should have a section on conspiracy theories. I think they should be in this article.--Genandrar (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the over-arching criteria for inclusion, as a WP article, is NOT whether we like the subject, or the fact that there are "conspiracy theories" on a given matter, or whether they're somewhat "flowing" or "hodge-podge" or so-called "fringe", but only whether the subject is stand-alone, notable (it definitely is, when big news agencies have even discussed the theories etc), and whether the matter is sourced. (This subject is COPIOUSLY sourced...by reliable sources.) This subject meets all of those things.   The article is legitimate, regardless of personal feelings, bias, or attitudes, or "I don't like"  reasons or notions.  Calling something "fringe" or "speculation" is a circular argument, and also misses the entire point.   There's an article on fake moon landing conspiracies. Why? Because that topic is SO notable, stand-alone, and sourced, it's like not funny.   Yet many people (including high-level politicians) call that view or topic "fringe".  Doesn't matter.  It's notable enough.  And so (at this point) is this Malaysian crashed airplane and theories that've been put forth regarding it.  It's arguably big enough, and definitely sourced more than enough, and meets the criteria.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy for now, consider a merge later - As the plane is still missing, conspiracy theories of various sorts will pop up. For lack of any other information, news sources will cover these theories. After the plane's wreckage is found and the results of the first serious investigations are released, any conspiracy theories that persist for a while past the initial findings and continue to be covered in reliable sources may merit a section in the main article on the crash. The conspiracy theory article contains a hodgepodge of fringe theories, but it may also contain fringe theories that will become notable later on. I don't think this belongs in the main article space, but userfying it isn't a bad idea. - Bootstoots (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I buy that argument--if it's notable now, which it clearly is given the large amount of coverage it has received in reliable sources--then it always will be notable. Jinkinson   talk to me  02:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think Gabby Merger said it well. Everyking (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Unencylopedic fringe theories, purely baseless speculation. Many sources are nonserious, and the reliable ones, inevitable in the 24-hour news cycle, do not make the theories notable or relevant. Merge a couple lines that they exist, but detailed discussion of individual lunacies is undue weight and not our provenance. Reywas92 Talk 03:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yawn All arguments dealt with in many counterarguments above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources do not make the theories notable"? Yes they absolutely do! They are the only criteria we use to decide whether topics are notable.--Genandrar (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete The article quality is absolute shit TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't "shit" here Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 07:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have the General Notability Guideline, and this article passes it. In NONEWS I only found the phrase [news coverage] should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. That hasn't been done. Article quality and the sanity of those whom the conspiracies originate from cannot be discussed at AfD, as pointed out many times above. --Pgallert (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(more Flight MH370)

 * Strong Keep and not merge. With news reports of the plane's multiple tracking systems deliberately shutoff (from the cockpit?), in quick sequence, and then a U-turn, this airline flight screams, "Conspiracy!" as noted in the sources. So much detail would be wp:UNDUE weight in the main page, "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370" which focuses on passengers, flight plan, or search-and-recovery of the wreckage and black-box recorders. Keep separate for expansion of unusual, detailed reports which could be wp:Grandstanding of tangent viewpoints, if allowed to get billing in the main article. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Most !votes have missed that this is a stand alone list. WP:LISTN 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 WP:NFRINGE. It doesn't matter who believes of disbelieves, only have WP:RSs 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. WP:SOFIXIT applies. I rarely give credence to conspiracy theories, but it is a cultural phenomena that cannot be made to go away by deleting articles on Wikipedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This article says something substantial about the time we live in and about the way how many people still think in the 21st century. The topic, the content of our article (not its truthfulness) and its notability is verifiable by multiple reliable sources. The most detailed encyclopedic project in the world should preserve this kind of information for future generations, for sociology researchers, or just for us as a reminder of human curiosity which, despite all the progress, still resorts to the realm of the mystical. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There are many reports about "conspiracy theories", which passes GNG.  They are an expected part of an encyclopedic article.  Our coverage of them is especially important because the distinction between a mainstream theory and a conspiracy theory in this case is solely determined by the media's point of view - e.g. whether it is credible that the U. S. would lie about Diego Garcia, whether it is credible that someone could have hacked into the plane's electronics, etc.  We distinguish the articles because of WP:FRINGE, which endorses a media point of view, but deleting the details about the ideas that distrust the "wrong" people entirely is unacceptable. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy-theorists' blog. We are here to spread knowledge, not ignorant speculation by the chronically delusional. There is nothing remotely 'notable' about the tinfoil-hat brigade once more coming up with the usual bollocks about yet another unfortunate event. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So it doesn't matter what GNG says, what NFRINGE says (as Genandrar pointed out very well above with the 21 sources) ... just whether you think it's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of 'not notable' is so hard to understand? Sure, reliable sources have made passing comments about the usual conspiracy nonsense - but there is no reason whatsoever to see this as having any enduring notability at this point. It is essentially trivia, useful no doubt to journalists looking to say something that they haven't already said ten times already. Wikipedia is under no obligation to repeat it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The part of "not notable" that's hard to understand is the fact that people are jumping back and forth between the dictionary definition and the Wikipedia policy. Under the policy, something either received the right kind of coverage and is therefore notable and worthy of inclusion -- or it didn't and isn't. If you're talking about what personally feels worthy of noting, regardless of the policy, it might be better to explicitly spell that out, just to avoid confusion. equazcion   →  16:36, 27 Mar 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) It is anything but trivia. Most of the 'conspiracy theories' are explorations of very real fears regarding aircraft.  Shoot-downs of civilian airliners with broken electronics, cyberattacks, or even seizure of airliners carrying WMDs are all very real ideas and every time people discuss them this will be used as a potential example.  Future sources will surely continue to refer to this incident for decades to come - centuries if the runaway greenhouse doesn't stop them first; this will attract the same sort of people who publish documentaries about their explanations of Jack the Ripper.  No doubt you'll dismiss all those future sources as one way or another unsuitable/uninteresting also, but that's not the policy. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Wnt, your crystal ball doesn't qualify as a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But the sources in the article itself do.  Konveyor   Belt  16:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I only picked up my crystal ball to refute yours. You're the one who started predicting the future claiming this doesn't have "enduring" notability.  I just see there were 21 sources and that's all I need to know. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTTRUTH. Like Wnt said, all of these things are very real possibilities and we should give them due weight. Hell, we don't even know where the airplane is, although Malaysia claims it went down. But how it did so is as yet undiscovered, and these things are still possibilities. And if they are wrong, it still received notable sources.  Konveyor   Belt  16:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - After sifting through the tinfoil hat remarks in various newspaper reader comment sections, it's 100% evident to me that this will be the next 9-11 or Kennedy Assassination for stupid people. Sufficient sources already exist to pass GNG and, oh, brother, are there gonna be more. It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure that out... Carrite (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep No real reason given in nom, and the delete votes are so pisspoor they may have well stayed home.  Konveyor   Belt  16:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are strong argument for keep; However, I have said Delete for now. As with Biography of a living person, this incident involves recently deceased people.  No one addressed this that I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.161.130  (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By and large this is an article about the plane, not the people; even if it is about the people, it is generally about them in aggregate, like an article about a country, which is not a BLP. Wnt (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but it involves the death of 100s of people. The first edit of 9/11 conspiracy theories was not until 2004.  Certainly there is a difference between a conspiracy theory and tabloid news.  One has allowed people to analyze the evidence.  The other is speculation.  As the situation plays out, there may well be a lot of reason to have this page.  However, cell phone video, the flight data recorder, etc maybe recovered and the majority of these theories will just look stupid.  I agree with the rational of conspiracy theories.  I don't think Wikipedia should be tabloid news. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When, as seems inevitable, legal proceedings are opened, will any part(s) of this article be considered "sub judice"? Or will that depend on the jurisdiction of the country in which those proceedings take place? (... or maybe Wkikpedia just doesn't care.) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Heheh. I have to admit that I had to look up sub judice on Wikipedia, and (thank God) I think most Americans know less about it than I did.  More importantly, we don't care. :) Wnt (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep 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. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am having a harder time to buy WP:FRINGE the more I think about this. First, there is no accepted theory.  In fact, the page is actually a list of open speculations on the disappearance of Flight 370.  There is no accepted main stream theory.  The page is a list of speculations on causes of a current event.  For WP:FRINGE to apply, people will have to retrieve wreckage and evidence, come to a hypothesis on the cause and prevent a theory on why the plane disappeared.  Then, this page could be presented the way it is.  I think it is specious to call this a fringe theory.  Maybe the Wikipedia policy applies, but at least the page should be moved.  It doesn't refute anything.  It is just a list of people's speculations. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct about the ambiguity there. This could be compared to how truthers call the official account of 9/11 the "official conspiracy theory"--except there is no "official conspiracy theory" regarding MH370. For this reason, and to make it clear that this page wasn't supposed to be about every possible explanation that has been proposed, I added a caveat in the lead about how things in this article should have been "dismissed as absurd by the mainstream media." While my intent was to keep non-conspiratorial speculation out of this article, apparently User:8tythree saw it as POV-pushing on my part, which is why I removed it. However, although the sentence about how things in the article must have been described as conspiracy theories (by reliable sources, of course) seems specific enough to me, if you want to discuss which sentence should be in the article, head over to the talk page and do so there. Jinkinson   talk to me  19:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 alternative theories" - I agree with Daniel Case that alternative theories can, will, and should be explored and considered. I strongly believe that this is a case of "internal hijacking" as proposed by this Yahoo News article. Check out Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 hijacked last month, Asia-Pacific Asia-Pacific Arlines in 1998, and China Airlines Flight 334 in 1986 as recent examples. I've been working on furthering this theory on my website. - Technophant (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: It's too soon to know if these conspiracy theories will progress beyond various individuals' fringe ideas of what happened. Besides, it doesn't list my preferred theory, that the Iranians hijacked it and flew it to their secret volcano lair to turn into a nuclear cruise missile. --Carnildo (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I feel that the shoot down and phantom cellphone theory can be merged into the main article, but think that the rest of it is clickbait rubbish for attracting visitors to blogs and etc. Whitewater111 (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Whitewater11. A very important point that you and others who are so with "delete" keep missing.  Ok, ready? Here it goes.   It's NOT the specific theories or views that are the issue or the determination for this article's existence, but rather THAT THERE ARE MANY THEORIES, VIEWS, NOTIONS, AND SPECULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON.   Not the views themselves, which I would agree in many cases are borderline wacky or silly.    NOT THE ISSUE OR THE POINT!!!     It's the PHENOMENON that is what is notable...not the individual theories in question.  (Forgive the caps, they were not necessarily meant as yelling but as special emphasis.)    Yes, there's a flow and flux in this particular matter, etc, and not all theories are all that smart arguably, but that does NOT negate the (sourced) fact that the matter (of theories and speculations and fears etc) have been going ON!   The specific ones are not that relevant to the actual point.   And it's become obvious that many editors on here, who are so strong for "delete", are getting matters a little confused.  At least to some extent.   The PHENOMENON is what is notable, not necessarily each individual theory put forth IN the phenomenon.    Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @gabby, I don't deny that they are conspiracy theories on this event, but as noted in my earlier vote, some of it is notable and strongly sourced, wile the validity of some of the other stuff is rather more then not questionable. My overall concern is that this is going to become a list of every conspiracy theory on this accident.  It's not a case of what I don't like or do, but rather more some rational that - yes this material has a place, but more as a part of the main article rather then a subject of it's own - and yes I do see some plausable insight to some of the material - not all of it.  I feel that the more notable theories should be plucked out, and placed into the main article under such a header - it would become more cohesive for the reader. Whitewater111 (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: 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. WP:FRINGE 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 WP:CONTROVERSIALFACT also seems to back this up. Sorry if I seem to be spamming guidelines, but for something like this, it seems necessary. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete*: in principle, Wikipedia is to provide facts, not speculations. While circulation of those conspiracy theories is a fact, Wikipedia should not have a role to propagate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.115 (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this is annoying now. EVERY SINGLE EDITOR who has voted "delete" reveals that he or she keeps missing the point.  The editor just before who said "Wikipedia is to provide facts, not speculations. While circulation of those conspiracy theories is a fact, Wikipedia should not have a role to propagate them" shows he's not really getting the point and is not understanding what is actually being "propagated"...because Wikipedia is "providing facts" in that it's providing the FACT that there are "conspiracy theories" and speculations that have been going on regarding this missing airplane. The editor even admitted that it is a fact that the speculations have been going on, but is wrong in thinking that that means WP is somehow "propagating them".    No, just not suppressing them, because of "I don't like" reasons or uptightness.   It's NOT the theories themselves that WP is "propagating"...but the PHENOMENON ITSELF that there even are theories and fears and speculations.    Why is everyone who's for delete being so SLOPPY AND KNEE-JERK in their whole understanding of this, which is really mis-understanding of the entire point!!    WP is not supposed to be in the business of SUPPRESSING information that you don't like...but is to "provide facts" on what's TAKING PLACE.  That's IT.    It's NOT the specific theories or views that are the issue or the determination for this article's existence, but rather THAT THERE ARE MANY THEORIES, VIEWS, NOTIONS, AND SPECULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON. Not the views themselves, which I would agree in many cases are borderline wacky or silly. NOT THE ISSUE OR THE POINT!!! It's the PHENOMENON that is what is notable...not the individual theories in question. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The 'phenomenon' isn't notable - it is just another example of conspiracy theorists concocting conspiracy theories. It's what they do. The article provides no evidence whatsoever that this particular instance of conspiracy-mongering is any different from any other. All it does is provide a few examples of the same old same old - with no real analysis of the 'phenomenon', much less any evidence that it is in any way unusual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I could say all the same things about something truly boring and repetitive, like a baseball game. It absolutely beats the shit out of me why anybody needs to know or care about the newest baseball game when all they'll do is hit and toss a ball around like they have every time before.  To quote the paragraph above, "it's what they do."  I mean, if they ran tape of one of their old games from a decade or two ago I sure wouldn't notice the difference.  I'd like to know why the Umpteenth World Series (or any of the even less notable matches) can't be lumped into an article with all the others with a link to some database of particulars if anyone really cares.  But do I go around nominating people's dull-ass sports articles for deletion?  No.  They have reliable sources and that's all that matters.  I would like to see the same courtesy for conspiracy theories, especially when they're not all people running around in circles - some of the ideas put forward in this case are pretty interesting. Wnt (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wnt's response to "AndyTheGrump"...and I would add that of course the phenomenon itself is notable, as it's been mentioned, noted, sourced, discussed.  It's insane for you to say it's not notable WHEN THE VERY POINT OF ALL THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW PROVES THAT IT'S NOTABLE...duhhh...lol.    How exactly is not "not notable"?   Simply because you say so?   That's a circular argument and statement of "it's not worthy or notable, because I say it's not notable"...REGARDLESS OF ALL THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND SOURCES AND DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING IT THAT PROVE OTHERWISE.   Sighs...    Again, to re-iterate, it's NOT the specific speculations and theories themselves that are necessarily "notable", but rather the issue OF put-forth theories, as an overall situation.   That's it.   Let's PLEASE not always mix things up and confuse the two things.   And again, Grump, when you say that the phenomenon itself is "not notable", you're just plain wrong. It unquestionably is.  Also, what does the article not proving that this instance of theorizing is any different than other instances have anything do with it?  Since when is that the determination?   Because the many OTHER instances of theorizing have been notable situations too, generally.  So?   Even if some haven't, that doesn't mean that this here doesn't meet notability criteria.  But there's no question that this instance is notable, because over 30 sources is not proof enough for you?   And the fact that there's been SO MUCH INTERNET TRAFFIC ON THIS ISSUE ALONE is not proof enough...of "notability" and "fame" etc?    CNN is not notable proof for you?     Even if some of the theories or conjectures given are vapid or not notable or are "fringe".  (Not all the theories are necessarily arguably so wacky though...some arguably have merit...though not all do.) But again, it's not the theories themselves that are really the issue per se...but the fact that there's controversy, doubt, speculations, fears, conjectures, and theories surrounding the matter.  That's the overarching point.   Not whether you personally "like" that there's been theorizing.  But the phenomenon itself.   Regards.  Gabby Merger (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware "you are insane" isn't a valid reason to keep the article. Neither is the fact that the article is up for discussion, for that matter. And screaming in CAPITALS and bold isn't either. As for your assertion that the article is about the 'phenomenon', rather than about the theories themselves, that isn't what it looks like now - the lede makes it entirely clear that the intention is to list as many conspiracy theories (i.e. primary source material for the 'phenomenon')as possible, regardless of whether they have been discussed as a part of a conspiracy-theory 'phenomenon' by secondary sources. In other words, you are arguing that we should 'keep' another article entirely. Since that article appears not to exist. and since you consider the subject notable, I suggest you write it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Going in circles now, and it's tiring, and it's a merry-go-round. No, you and the others DON'T get it, not really. Not all the individual theories or conjectures are necessarily so notable...but the overall situation or phenomenon (that of various speculations and conjectures) is clearly notable and very sourced. (By the way, I never said "you're insane", so don't mis-quote me, I said "IT's insane for you to...")    And it doesn't matter that the article is listing or describing some of the theories. It's only giving cursory broad summations and general information about them, not heavy detail necessarily.   That's to be expected if it's about the phenomenon of the theories.   Some information about some of the theories themselves should be mentioned.   Not a big problem in context.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2 Alright, alright, let's just calm down here. Yes, it may not seem big in the grand scheme of things, but there's enough sources to prove its notability, even though many of these theories really make you wonder what the people who thought of them were on. Baseball games and the like are basically just stats and results, but something like a missing plane and the theories surrounding that have a lot more story to them (by story I mean encyclopedic prose content as opposed to a batting chart and a few sentences). Any sort of strange phenomenon I'd think should have its own article for the conspiracies surrounding it, assuming there were enough reputable sources. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 06:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've said it before, and even though I don't care much for conspiracy theories, if an event like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can have an article solely about other theories, even though it's know what happened, who did it, and partially why, being open and shut, then an event like this, along with its mysterious nature can surely have an article for theories. --Matt723star (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Agree with user:Daniel Case on all of his comments. Also I missed the point, what are the grounds for the article's nomination for deletion? Dmatteng (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What_Wikipedia_is_not, Under Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, section 3 says Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person., seems to be relevant. This is of course notable and at some point is acceptable.  It is hard in the current form to see how it is encyclopedic.  It seems a slipper slope where Wikipedia may in ten years be like E-talk daily.  Most air crash investigator are saying things like "It is too early to tell", etc.  Also as for 'conspiracy theories', a hallmark is that someone from the mainstream has refuted them.  All of these are so current as to not had any time to be vetted.  It is rather incredible that something 'Rush Limbaugh' says on CNN makes it to Wikipedia.  I hear people.  This is fascinating; Is it worthy of being in an Encyclopedia? 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete made up stuff by journalists while they wait for facts, nearly all of it is speculation rather than conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not a blog for speculators. MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Potentially merge...but definitely keep.  I agree; a lot of the theories being propounded about this case are asinine, idiotic, moronic, foolish, puerile, any number of words you may wish to use, and don't really deserve to be given the time of day.  Unfortunately, they are being given the time of day, by reputable organizations such as CNN, no less.  It's gotten to the point that coverage of the conspiracy theories has become a story in itself for some news organizations.  (I even happened to see it on CNN when Dan Lemon had some pundit on to defend his own 24-hour-a-day coverage, which has dredged up some of these ideas.  It was one of the most absurdly meta moments I've ever seen on TV.)  And I'd argue that it's gone farther - there's now a backlash against the coverage of the coverage of the conspiracy theories.  So they've become a part of the story in and of themselves, one way or another, and I think that needs to be dealt with. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is some merit to this. However, the page as it stands now, looks like technical explanations.  If it is a page about a social phenomenon, it would make more sense.  Really the word theory should be removed from the article (it is in the title) and be changed to speculation or something like that. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also disapprove of the "conspiracy theory" name, especially since the mainstream explanations seem to be leaning toward terrorist conspiracies; the phrase is a USism dating back to JFK, but an abuse of the English language. I would like something more like "Speculative explanations for the Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 crash".  (Speaking of conspiracy theories, to dispel the too-serious atmosphere here, I'll mention I recently ran across a true howler, the most ridiculous explanation for the JFK assassination evar, aired in the popular American "History Channel", namely that he was killed because he knew about a secret hoard of gold on Mount Victorio that LB Johnson secretly had shipped on military cargo planes to his ranch.  Still... it's creative entertainment, and as Lotto pushers say (but less truthfully), "Ya never know". :) Wnt (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Vote to Keep, with Comment: Daniel, your information is correct and well thought out. What I move to do is rename the article to include the word "notable" within its title. This will do two things: first off, it will silence these people who are failing to understand the WP policies you've explained time and again as well as clear away the weird "wormhole" and "space alien" theories. In this case, if a source could be proven as completely not notable or trash, it could be removed swiftly and without bias or mercy; however, if "x" theory is documented by "list of x sources", then we can keep the content and we'll have an article that is up to par and can stand with the best! Thanks.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   20:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I find "wormhole" and "space alien" theories as plausible and well referenced as what is currently on the page. Daniel's argument about the existence of air crash conspiracy pages is not quite right.  Those pages are in a historic context where as this is a current event.  Because CNN is a reliable source in some cases, does not make it reliable in all cases.  References and support should stand by themselves and not solely on the source.  If the media reports speculation, this does not make it fact.  Really what is the problem with waiting a while.  Somebody can keep the information on a personal page and it can be used at a later time when a proper investigation is concluded.  I am sure when the searchers discover debris covered in eco-plasm, we will all have a good laugh :). 71.19.161.130 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Another thing that is worthy of notice is the fact that News Media (such as CNN, BBC, etc) want to improve their ratings and they do this with interesting. news. People will lap up conspiracy theories faster than a cat laps up milk! Why on earth would notable news agencies NOT cover them? It's just logic...even if what they are covering is completely ludicrous! Interesting news + general public = higher news-station ratings!  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე  
 * Delete - Unfounded speculation on an event in the news does not deserve a page. It should be noted that other incidents of similar nature in the past did not get a 'conspiracy theory' page thus the same principle should be applied to this event. — Harpsichord246 (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXiST is a valid deletion reason, then I should refute it by TWA Flight 800 alternative theories. Foremost among those theories were ideas directly parallel to those for flight 370: that the airliner was shot down by a missile and those responsible were covering it up. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The mainstream media like CNN and BBC are covering conspiracy theories. Some are from significant sources supported by nation states such as Iran's PressTV, and it's US-branded outlet Veterans Today by a wide variety of voices such as Michael Shrimpton, Leuren Moret, and Yoichi Shimatsu. Most are of the same anti-semitic disinformation variety as noted by ADL on anti-semitic conspiracy theories which blame the US or Israel for either shooting down or diverting the aircraft, and might be a deliberate intelligence pyschological warfare campaign on the part of a nation-state or affliliated terrorist groups which routinely delete any mention of such conspiracy sources. For example, Veterans Today was deleted without any discussion, Michael Shrimptom was also deleted as noted by a news source. The fact that subject might himself be an unreliable news source is in fact notable if the subject has been noted by other media or other conspiracy sites as either a reliable or unreliable source. Bachcell (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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 Fringe theories & WP:RSOPINION? 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. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The point of the article is not to attempt to determine the validity or plausibility of conspiracy theories or the reason  why  the aircraft went down. The point of the article is documenting the existence of those conspiracy theories about why the aircraft went down, mostly espoused by some very notable people, such as Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh, and repeated by significant media coverage of those theories - which is a notable event in and of itself.  All the information in the article -- i.e., reports of people espousing these theories -- is verifiable, because the theories really have, or have not, been proposed by various people as documented by the supporting links. It doesn't really matter how plausible the "black hole" theory actually is. When a notable person espouses it, the espousal is the notable event, not the theory itself. 72.179.131.235 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC) GornDD


 * Delete without prejudice towards recreation at a later date 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 WP:CRYSTAL (and a separate article would then be motivated only if it would fulfil the requirements of Content forking and Summary style). walk victor falktalk</i> 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep "Notoriety" is not a valid rationale for deletion. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete It adds nothing to the subject, just a list of "What could have happened" --151.229.65.209 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But if it's covered in reliable sources, a list of "What could have happened" isn't such a bad thing for Wikipedia, is it? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh air plane crash investigators? If Stephen Hawking makes a comment on who will win an Emmy, Oscar or Booker prize on CNN can I create a page of facts based on this?  The main issue is that this information is not technically sound.  Some sources are from state agency that are involved in other conflicts at this time.  Could any of the government sources be spreading dis-information?  For a page like this to be technically accurate, it takes time for people to investigate.  The main page on the crash has a large disclaimer; this page has none.  Certainly, it is notable as a social phenomena, in that people not qualified care to comment on it.  It sets a bad precedent in my opinion.  We can have wiki lynch mobbing of different current events as people push their opinion.  This AfD maybe used for others to push this type of agenda.  A small blurb in the main page saying that all of the uncertainty lead many to speculate (with these examples as a synopsis) in the main page makes sense. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of the keep vote have comments like my favorite theory, etc. I think it is very hard for people to cull the list with information available.  As such, it is very difficult for editors to not put some sort of original research in the article.  There are far too many possibilities at this point as there is little evidence that can refute them. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep — Subject appears to meet the WP:GNG. The article in its current version (much different then the version at the start of the AfD), is well sourced and verifiable. STATic message me!   21:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. When I nominated this for deletion the article was barely sourced and had wacky theories that were barely present in the mainstream media. These new theories are much more present and do deserve to be kept. Snood1205 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, wait, wait. Does that mean that you're willing to admit this topic is notable and therefore withdraw your nomination, User:Snood1205? Jinkinson   talk to me  01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the way it's looking right now, if he withdraws it, someone else'll AfD it, so just let it stand that the nominator now opposes deletions and let an uninvolved admin take care of it for sure. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From Articles for deletion: "If no-one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it". Clearly not the case here, so the AfD continues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are clearly many references from reliable sources showing that the WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge with main article Surely public responses and speculation about an event are valid encyclopaedic information, in that they were expressed, gained a following, and contributed to the unfolding of the response by many involved parties. Conspiracy theorists have their own sites, yes, but by encountering these theories on a reliable source like Wikipedia readers can contextualise the theories, ascertain their origins and judge their level of plausibility, rather than being taken in by unbalanced "hype". I realise Wiki is not a therapy session for the hysterical, but I repeat, this is valid information about responses to the event. Golden-elm (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete This page looks a lot like a POV fork. Happy Attack Dog  ( you rang? ) 17:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A POV fork issue is avoided so long as the article offers a larger space to deal with a small part of the encompassing topic, and is accurately summarized at the main article per WP:summary style. For example, the main article can mention there are conspiracy theories, perhaps listing a few of the main ones in passing, and the sub-article gives room to explore them in detail that would be WP:UNDUE at the main article.  Note this is true whether (as is currently the case) only the "conspiracy theories" are detailed, or (as I would prefer) all the explanations are considered in greater depth in the sub-article regardless of their categorization. Wnt (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename and Keep I don't see that these conspiracy theories have developed enough legitimacy to be considered encyclopedic yet. Delete until some point in the future means...what exactly? How do we mensurate the day when a page like this will be substantial enough for inclusion? If we rename the page something along the lines of 'Speculation in Non-Mainstream Media About the Fate and Whereabouts of Malaysian Flight 370' which is what the page actually is then we could actually be discussing the merits of the page. The substance of this is that some conspiracy theorists publish a blog, make a YouTube Video or somebody who likes to keep their name in the media makes an off-hand remark and this now constitutes a "source"? Diego Garcia is only 4000 Km or so from one of the suspected courses of Flight 370 so perhaps the CIA is responsible? That doesn't strike me as being a conspiracy theory about Flight 370 as much as it is promoting conspiracy theories about Diego Garcia. There is an innate quality to conspiracy theorists that attempt to tie every event no matter how bizarre to a central hypothesis on their parts. The conspiracy theories regarding MH Flight 370 seem more akin to this connection principle than they do self-standing ideas that are researched and intellectually rigorous. JFK Conspiracy Theories and 7/7 Conspiracy Theories are reasonable since it would follow that a conspiracy was involved or at least there is enough research to support the idea that there was a conspiracy. This subject doesn't have anywhere enough research (nor will it possibly ever have enough lacking any better physical evidence) to progress to theories; we're still dealing with speculation at this point. There is a wide gulf between conspiracy theories and conspiracy speculation. In casual contexts we have blurred the lines. I would say, in my humble opinion, conspiracy theories are fine for an encyclopedic perspective but, perfunctory conspiracy speculation is superfluous. Lets call the page what it is for now and see if it can progress to legitimacy. "Speculation outside the mainstream media about MH Flight 370" might be brief enough a title. I would think reincorporating it under a similar heading in the main article would be reasonable too. Sonthert (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge Some people are so delete happy I dont get it. The event is significant. It inspired conspiracy theorists to come out of the hedges. Therefore, its significant and notable.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article has been improving. It's not bad.  It's sad that the media has chosen to cover the loonier ones, but they have.   As Daniel Case has been noting ... our policies support a keep.   The tone is appropriate.  We cover the Apollo hoax, creationist, God and flat earth theories.  And Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories.  Verifiability, not truth.  Not IDONTLIKEIT. --Elvey (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, at this point. The article has come a long way since its nomination and now appears to meet notability guidelines, with dozens of good sources spanning the article. --CrunchySkies (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * comment to Daniel Case please read WP:BLUDGEON. Please refrain from arguing against every single delete vote, it is bordering on disruptive, especially in a big AfD like this one. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * STRONG Delete - I see no need to have such a load of rubbish on an encyclopaedia. There is no proof of any of this so you'd may as well replace this article with double Dutch, it would be the same. Plus I think it is insensitive. Thєíríshwαrdєn  - írísh αnd prσud  21:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete 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 WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 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. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.