Deletion of Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor

Comment: per {{u|Hobit}}. It is debunked in enough RS that ''PROFRINGE says it should be kept'': {{tq|Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are |notable.}} But encyclopedically it is useful to put it in the context of other glorious examples of contemporary American post-truth politics, so redirect it and merge the material
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Each little made-up attack on a political figure is not a notable topic or one appropriate for an encyclopedia, even if summarily debunked by reliable sources. This is no more than a standard fringe theory during an election that happened to be addressed in the , and utter nonsense claims made by the ilk of InfoWars and the National Enquirer do not warrant an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Passes , no doubt. It is credible enough for WaPo and others to feel the need to dismiss it. Frankly, if this were a Donald Trump rumor, not only the media but also Wikipedia would pounce on it. Every vote would be "keep." I know it. Special:Contributions/2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA|2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE)

Comment: per . Also fails . What we would need for GNG are more reliable sources about the subject (the subject behind all the examples, not a coatrack of specific accusations/rebuttals). There are a couple, but not enough when compounded with  (and, to a lesser extent, ). &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE||WP:GNG||WP:PROFRINGE||WP:BLPGOSSIP)

Comment: Passes 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE)

Comment: There is a fine line between creating an article that engages in speculation and an article that reports on the practice of a specific form of speculation, provided that the practice has received significant coverage in reliable sources. I think this is a fairly close call in this case, but on balance, I think this article functions more as restatement of the conspiracy theories than a description of history, prevalence, impact, and significance of such theories. To the extent that these rumors are noteworthy, I think readers would be best served if a brief summary of the rumors were included at the article for Hillary Clinton (per ), which already includes a discussion of her health and explains that {{tq|"her doctors subsequently said she made a full recovery"}} from the 2012 hospitalization
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PAGEDECIDE)

Comment: I spent weeks Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Bushman|working on the AfD for Boyd Bushman which was a  deletion and we had to scrape and claw due to the fact it was getting airtime on Coast to Coast AM so every nutter in America was coming to the article. THAT was fringe. This is not. Some people here are mistaken as to what  covers. PROFRINGE is not a proscription on fringe, weird, or bizarre ideas; PROFRINGE is a proscription on fringe ideas that can only be sourced to fringe sources. This is a fringe idea that has been elevated to the point of national discussion through coverage in the mainstream media. The fact it's a hoax is totally irrelevant - we have all sorts of articles on hoaxes like Żydokomuna, Balloon boy hoax, Stab-in-the-back myth, and a thousand others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE||WP:PROFRINGE)

Comment: Fails  and, possibly, . If Wikipedia covered every conspiracy theory that emerged, it would fill up pretty quickly. This theory is very clearly designed to undermine Mrs Clinton's campaign for the Presidency, and Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to manipulate voters, especially in cases such as this where there is virtually no evidence. If more concrete evidence emerged (e.g. an expert opinion from Clinton's doctor), then I would suggest inclusion on Clinton's own article. It isn't worthy of its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE||WP:GNG)