Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TWA Flight 800 alternative 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 keep. Singu larity 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TWA Flight 800 alternative theories[edit]

Far too many controversy exist and it will be hard to make it neutral. I also fear the article will become a soapbox to people who have their own theories on the crash. Fighting for Justice 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possibly serves a function as part of the TWA Flight 800 article, but does need scrutiny.--ZayZayEM 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead without asking for consensus, and forked off this part of the main article mainly for two reasons: the main article was getting way too long, and invariably those who believe that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile try to push that POV in it. As for FfJ's concerns, I agree with him 100% that there will always be these problems that will constantly have to be dealt with. Lipsticked Pig 07:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for being so understanding LP. Fighting for Justice 07:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, and personally find this article questionable, but my personal standards are not what goes at Wikipedia. Given the extensive referencing, notability and reliable sources isn't an issue here. Whatever your opinion, the fact remains that there are a lot of theories, and they have received a lot of press coverage. Keeping them in this article is a good idea because we are now reporting on the existence - and the resulting media coverage - of the theories. Putting summaries back in the actual article makes it appear that we are reporting them as fact, and detracts from the factual text there. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Article does not currently appear to be a POV fork or soapbox, appears to be well source-documented, seems rational and balanced/neutral (the "alternative theories" are discussed largely from both sides, and some provide basis for dismissal). Deletion in possible anticipation of future soapboxing POV-creep is probably not an appropriate criteria for deletion, and WP:RPP is probably a better way to handle it if edit wars or other content disputes arise. But then of course we risk WP:WV coming in to play with WP:ROUGE admins. Ah well. // (own previous question/commentary follows...) But: Question: is (or should) the AfD nomination be based on whether the article constitutes a POV Fork of TWA Flight 800? Should the two "viewpoints" be cleaned up and re-merged as it were? I understand that the two may be overlong together, and splitting off "independant" sections may sometimes be a recommended remedy for that, but it can also often be fixed by simply condensing the "facts" down to the bare minimum and providing reference links to reliable established external sources for the reader to consult if desired. Mention the controversy, give a reference link or two, and move on to the next topic. Conspiracy theorists will always be around to tell the rest of us how wrong and stupid we are, ~~but my view is that we should avoid giving them a soapbox article that will almost by definition move us away from WP:NPOV~~, but as pointed out this can be dealt with as needed. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tragedy is the subject of many conspiracy theories, which have received a good deal of press, and article is well-sourced (and thus the topic is notable). 9/11 conspiracy theories have their own page; while this is not as extensive, it's still a large enough body to deserve its own page--particularly when the main page for Flight 800 is long enough. --Deusnoctum 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point is not to argue that these theories are true, but that there are people who think there was a conspiracy. I see no problem with neutrality, and any soapbox addition would tend to be taken care of by our laissez faire system. Mandsford 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't agree with most theories out there these days (they are just theories, otherwise they'd be called facts) but I sure like to understand where they are coming from a bit more when I come across someone that does believe this. Strawberry Island 20:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it's clear that these are either alternate or conspiracy theories. When the original article is too long, then it makes no sense to merge into a huge article. E343ll 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 10 September 2007 (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.