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. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic alternative theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

This is a collection of ideas that have received very little in the way of independent, third-party acknowledgment required by our various notability and fringe theory guidelines. Sure, people published these weird ideas, but if nobody takes notice of them, then they don't belong in Wikipedia since there is no chance we can reliable source verifiable statements about the ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fringe theories, no real coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. We found the ship and subsequent testing proved the main "theory". No need for these unnotable hoaxes. Tavix (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix, notable idiocies are notable even after being proven idiotic. DGG (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like when Little Mikey died after eating pop rocks? PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, as I do occasionally deal with people who have heard these theories and think there may be something to them. But I could live with a merge that adds Biruitorul's suggested text to the main article, as proposed in the original nomination discussion. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have posted a thread on the sources at Talk:Titanic_alternative_theories#Sources. Some of these "theories" have received some coverage. For example the coal fire, [1]. The pack ice and the mummy may also be notable for inclusion. The others should go, I think, or only be briefly mentioned (there's still [2]). As most of this material is not mergeable (clearly WP:UNDUE), I'd vote either delete or keep. There's already a mention in Titanic, Titanic#Alternative_theories. I'll wait and see if the article improves. Cenarium ^Talk 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has improved in a few days. It still needs much work, but deletion doesn't seem to be justified. The "theories" are together notable, and reliable sources exist. So definite Keep. Cenarium ^Talk 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, the point of that page is not to come up with as many fake theories as possible, but to obscure the whole idea that a fraud may had been perpetrated by diluting it with numerous bogus propositions such as mummy curse, god's wrath, etc. of course, in the present form all 5 or so of those theories look about equally 'wacky' - and that's what some editors were keen to accomplish. it's like a multiple choice question, full of distracting foils.24.11.214.147 (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I looked over the article, which seems to be sourced ok. The "idea" of this article seems perfectly logical, just as there are alternative theories to JFK's shooting, etc. These may not be true, but they DO get significant coverage. I would be shocked if the Discover channel hasn't produced a show that basically covers this topic. Regardless, the topic itself is notable and there are no flaws in the article that would require a rewrite. I think the theories are BS personally, but the article seems to be exactly what an encyclopedia is for, to inform. Even in the intro, it clearly states that most of these common theories have been debunked (but seem to live on). PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Silly as they may be, and most of them perhaps not individually notable, still a collective article makes sense, as for other notable instances. Cenarium's comment above about why this should be an article distinct from the main one seems correct to me. DGG (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in its present, smeared form, the article is better off being flushed.24.11.214.147 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is "smeared form"? I see each section at last marginally sourced, so confused. If you want to pursued, please expand. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • i only refer to gardiner's part. that section is backed by recently added unreliable sources. 24.11.214.147 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you want to delete the entire article because someone recently added a source in a single section that you feel is unreliable? And that source is the actual book? PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • no. the debunking is. not the book.24.11.214.147 (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced theories. Alexius08 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The theories is are sourced. Nor are they hoaxes, real people have proposed these theories, silly as many of them are. Edward321 (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Searches such as this indicate that there's lots of coverage out there for these theories. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly well sourced. I'm uncertain what the nominator's definition of "third party sources" is if published books are not acceptable. 23skidoo (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yeah, they're sourced, but per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, we need not be devoting an entire article to this. And as Mgy401 1912 noted, I do have a condensed version - complete with one reference per theory - ready for inclusion in one of the other articles on the Titanic. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Individually, I would agree, but as a group of alternative explanations, they are notable, because, well, there are a group of them that some people still take serious and get coverage. Please note, wp:undue says Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them, so doesn't really apply here. If you wanted to devote half the article on the Titanic to these theories, then it would. WP:FRINGE seems to say you CAN and SHOULD create this content as a separate article (see the example section, or Paul is dead as an example. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fair point. Anyway, in the event that we do keep, a lot of improvement is possible - shortening the Gardiner section, sourcing the expansion joints one, etc. Of course, the talk page is there for that. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, shortening it, eh? well, 3 days ago 2/3 of it already got chopped, so now it looks like a joke already. that's just too funny.24.11.214.147 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care one way or another about that section. The SUBJECT MATTER is notable, that is all that matters in this AFD. Your personal opinion of one of the theories is beyond the scope of any AFD and not important. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neither are your suggestions on 'improvement'.24.11.214.147 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might try paying attention to who is writing what. I never made any suggestions. More than one person disagrees with your being disagreeable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nope, it looks like you were the only one who was throwing around value judgments, though i care less what you had to say.24.11.214.147 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - well written, notable, sourced - no reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sure, people published these weird ideas, but if nobody takes notice of them... I believe these ideas were explored in secondary sources; they weren't just self-published. We should have an article about these just like we have articles on conspiracy theories, UFOs, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2008 (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.