Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Aurora shooting 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 delete. - filelake shoe  13:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Aurora shooting conspiracy theories

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not a place for conspiracy/fringe theories, and certainly not a separate article for these. My judgement suggests all these sources are not reliable so there's no point in merging to the main incident article, but if there were, this shouldn't remain even as a redirect. MASEM (t) 00:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FRINGE and coatrack; just a list of "hey look what I found online" links. Should be plowed under. §FreeRangeFrog 01:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's only one person who knew why they did it, and it wasn't a resurrected Heath Ledger brainwashed by the CIA to make a point/big blockbuster idea to film before the Olympics because of the Illuminati's Mayan calendar. Terrible sourcing mainly involving blog sites, and it's sad this wasn't even SPEEDYable. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, it should be gone. And Nate, I tried to do the speedy deletion but someone killed it before it went through. Could have saved some time.L.cash.m (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search and was unable to find any coverage of this topic in any independent and reliable sources. The only one that looked even remotely feasible is this one and even this isn't something I'd consider usable as a reliable source. All facepalming over the topic of the article aside, this just isn't a notable enough topic to warrant even a mention in the main article about the aurora shooting. It's not notable along the lines of the 9/11 conspiracies, after all. It may be eventually notable one day, but not right now. There's really no reason to even keep this in a userspace, although I suppose an editor could if they were so inclined. None of the sources are usable as even trivial ones, after all, and some of them aren't even sourced at all.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per tokyogirl above --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and for the record, none of the conspiracies really make any sense. AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 23:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it's past due for a snow close at this point, especially since now people are adding things that are pretty obvious trolling attempts. "The most plausible conspiracy theory, however, is that James Holmes is Barack Obama's 4th cousin from Kenya who was doing the President "a solid" by giving the country something to rally around before the election." reads like it's there to poke fun at the comments already in the article, so snow closing this now will probably prevent a lot of mischief even if it is inevitable the article gets deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2012 (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.