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)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories

[edit]
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notoriety Snood1205 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think you mean this Emily. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Again, that means you delete them from the article, not vote to delete the article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. And my keep vote below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Refer to my responses to reasons given by others above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, again, plus note some of the sources cited. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. ansh666 02:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 173.61.187.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Really sad when an IP understands Wikipedia policy better than longtime contributors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@173.61.187.71: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Move to discount this vote as utterly unserious. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there will be, even if you delete most of the unsourced crap. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Daniel Case: (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. ansh666 03:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should consider reading NOTTRUTH Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 03:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ansh666:: "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,[weasel words] 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."[citation needed].

"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)[reply]

You know what, I'm not even going to bother to respond to that drivel. I'm out. ansh666 03:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you were terribly in to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ours not to reason why. They decide, we report. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Addressed too many times to count. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: 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)[reply]
As I said, one injudiciously used source is not a reason to delete an article. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: 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)[reply]
@FenixFeather: "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See my response to him. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Soxrock24: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've replied to those concerns in a different comment above. ansh666 03:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've replied right back. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

@Ohconfucius: I see it as constructive replies against those weak delete votes. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 07:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Hz.tiang: 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)[reply]
If something is "unencyclopedic", it always will be. Find another argument. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@Agmole: I am satisfied to sit back and contemplate my former eloquence, thank you very much. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Bootstoots: 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)[reply]
Yawn All arguments dealt with in many counterarguments above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@TheAirplaneGuy: Please don't "shit" here Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 07:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(more Flight MH370)

[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry Wnt, your crystal ball doesn't qualify as a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources in the article itself do. KonveyorBelt 16:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(edit conflict) 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. KonveyorBelt 16:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@71.19.161.130: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(edit conflict)*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)[reply]
Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
From Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
More