Deletion of Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory

Comment: I guess. No one has really even attempted to address my initial concerns and try to explain exactly what the subject of the article is supposed to be. The move to "counter-narrative" does exactly the opposite, and just makes it fairly blatantly just a dumping ground for anything too FRINGE or POV to have any place is the main articles. If the "counter-narrative" is too far outside the mainstream to be covered in the main articles (and I'm not even entirely sure how many main articles we're talking about in total), then it's probably more |news reporting than it is encyclopedic. To egregiously link to the same thing twice in a row, |we don't have any obligation to cover things just because sources which are not an encyclopedia do so and definitely not when we can't even figure out what it is we're trying to cover. If we're moving content here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=922478241 specifically because it's too POV and in too much intricate detail to be appropriate for the main article, well, then that's just the definition of a POVFORK isn't it? No prejudice at all against recreating some type of article if we figure out what the subject is, but draft space is the place to collect miscellaneous content in case it eventually coalesces into a definite topic that is definitely notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: As an obvious   - Strip it down to reliable due sources and incorporate it back into the key article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:FORK)