Deletion of Officer-Hayes Hypothesis

Comment: TIME is a reliable secondary source when it reports, but is a primary source when it opines. The defense "the TIME article is compelling and introduces a very novel hypothesis" clearly indicates it is being used as a |primary source for a |neologism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS||WP:NEO)

Comment: To address , there is no original research on this wikipedia page - it is a summary of the hypothesis that is laid out in the original article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: WP:OR and  would seem to both be relevant here. The article creator seems to have turned an news opinion piece into a hypothesis, and given it a name. Original research attached to an unsourced neologism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per  and  and per the attempt to manipulate discussion results using sock puppetry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NEO)