Deletion of Trump plant theory

Comment: Yet another , semi-jocular "theory." It's very obvious speculation, and we needn't treat every piece of speculation - no matter how intriguing and/or well-covered - to its own article. For instance, the Cruz-Oswald https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/03/the-50-year-old-mystery-behind-that-photo-of-lee-harvey-oswald/ slur (remember that?), the "OMG Clinton wore an earpiece" http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-secret-earpiece/ nonsense, and all of the rest do not need their own articles, even though they've certainly generated sourcing. With every twist and turn of the campaigns, more of this sort of thing will come up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Even if we say something passes GNG (and I'm not necessarily saying that's the case here), that doesn't automatically mean it should have a stand-alone article. There are hundreds of individual aspects of individual campaigns, incidents involving individual candidates, etc. that, taken on their own, could be viewed as notable. But we don't have to take them on their own. Wikipedia is  and doesn't need to cover all of them separately, irrespective of /relative significance to the larger topic of which they are a part. It's possible this could be included in a campaign/election-related article, but the existence of sources about an aspect of those subjects that gets a bit of superficial attention in the news doesn't necessitate an article. There's some coverage -- but what's certainly not established is lasting significance outside the campaign/candidacy. I would support deleting the lot of stand-alone "controversy", "conspiracy", etc. articles that have no life outside of 2016 election/campaign/candidacy coverage until after the election, when we can see what has lasting significance. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:WEIGHT)