Deletion of Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016

Comment: Restore the blanked contents and rename to Fringe theories in the United States presidential election, 2016. Contested material will keep popping up everywhere until the election is over, and probably some time afterwards. This article is a great  landing pad for such claims, similar to jurisprudence established at 9/11 conspiracy theories
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:ONEWAY)

Comment: All valid content (if any) related to these theories should be included in other pages. None of these theories seems to be sufficiently notable to deserve a page. Each of them is a textbook example of ecentism. All together? An example of oatrack
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R||WP:C)

Comment: per . Anything that actually needs to be covered can be covered on one of the many existing 2016 election pages. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE)

Comment: this reeks of . Not that I blame anyone especially: the current election is dominated by a man who appears to be irrational and who has surrounded himself with zealots and cranks, so undoubtedly there will be a very high degree of bullshit in the coming weeks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Fails |notability.  In order to establish notability, it must be shown that someone has written about the |topic of conspiracy theories in the U.S. presidential election, not that various journalists have written about various individual theories.  "Conspiracy theory" has a specific meaning in the literature, but journalists may stretch it.  So for example the theory that Ted Cruz could not become president because he was born in Canada has been described as a conspiracy theory but is actually a |fringe theory.  The theory that Clinton's concussion affected her cognitive abilities is either an unfounded or malicious rumor.  What we need is a source that explains what is meant by a conspiracy theory and outlines some examples from the 2016 election.  And we need to know before we add anything that the author is talking about the same topic.  If no one in reliable sources has chosen to write about the topic of this article then it lacks notability.  The fact that we can find numerous examples where someone has called one theory or other a conspiracy theory (the "but we have sources!" argument) is insufficient to meet notability guidelines.  Otherwise we could have articles such as "Republican sex offenders," "Democrat thieves," "Liberals who text pictures of their genitals," etc.  Each of these articles would be a |point of view nightmare, wasting editors' time edit-warring and on talk page arguments, which has happened here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:TOPIC||WP:FRINGE||WP:POV)

Comment: per TFD and my past reasons in AfD's of this ilk; still a  and not appropriate for this venue at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: mostly per  and . There is a lot of disinformation surrounding this election, much of it deliberate. The analysis of what, why, who, and how may eventually become encyclopedic. But at this point, the article seems to be here less for that purpose and more as a way of putting the disinformation into the encyclopedia and then pointing to it to say "see! with all that smoke there must be a fire!". That is, to spread it around even more. That is the opposite of our purpose as an encyclopedia. So I think it would be best to wait  (at least, after the election) until time has made more clear what aspects of this subject are encyclopedic. If I had any faith that we could clearly, decisively, and unambiguously debunk the rumors that deserved it, I might have a different opinion, but Wikipedia is not Snopes and shouldn't try to be
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: There are plenty of RSs about individual conspiracy theories during this election. But I've yet to see one that actually discusses the phenomenon of conspiracy theories during this election as a whole. There ''will'' be some eventually, of that I have no doubt. But until then, |Wikipedia should not be write about the phenomenon as it is |too soon to speak authoritatively on it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BALL||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: looks like  with a dose of Wikipedia:Recentism|recentism (which is Wikipedia's biggest problem). More-over its originally and primarily  to get past an AFD of the Hillary content article, using Synth techniques to justify a broader article. Content that is not a BLP issue can be merged into relevant articles (not that I saw much that was worth it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: Contentious material about |living individuals in a contentious topic area with discretionary sanctions should require a ''firm'' consensus to keep, rather than a firm consensus to delete. The topic is not the problem here, the content that was removed per BLP didn't stay focused on the aim and scope of the topic of the article; instead, it drifted off to unacceptable material that focused too much on the individuals. The material was cherry-picked from RS and then used to synth this content together, which resulted in a massive BLP violation, that's unacceptable. Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016|Clintons campaign article has a section on her health, and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016|Trumps campaign article has sections on Cruz/controversies/fringe/conspiracy theories, there's no reason to create a POV fork full of BLP violations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: now that the  and  has been removed there is nothing left that is notable for a stand alone article. And frankly the old version should not be "restored", it was a WP:POVFORK and also had WP:UNDUE issues. It should have been deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:fringe)