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

The result of the discussion was delete. MER-C 10:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pc4235/Swine Flu Conspiracy Theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this enough of a thing to warrant an article? Seems more like pure craziness. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ask instead at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Seems possibly legit or fringe to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've posted there requesting comments here. Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good. I guess that MjolnirPants and LuckyLouie have !voted below in response.

In general, I think that fringe things are worthless to dangerous lying around, if not based on sources. This one has sources. However, it is quite old, and 6-7 years since the author was last active. Considering that, delete, but readily undelete should the user return and ask. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rather, don't make it an article per WP:NOTABILITY. I'm a little surprised that there exists a process for gathering a consensus for deleting userspace articles. As long as this isn't made into an article (or alternatively, isn't made into one until notability is established), I'm fine with letting the user keep it and work on it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT: the user has not been active for 7 years. (If multiple reliable sources confirmed the topic was a notable conspiracy theory, it might warrant a sentence at List of conspiracy theories, but not its own article) - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. There probably really is a conspiracy theory, but this draft is both stale and inadequately sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.