Deletion of Ritual child abuse

Comment: This is a potentially legitimate sub-subject/sub-page of Satanic ritual abuse and Child abuse. Of course one could say this whole page is one big synthesis, and it would be easier just to , but I do not think that's the optimal solution given that the content is very large and referenced
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Full of , no reason that a dowry should be tied FGM under this name. These "types" all have their own articles and it doesn't make sense to put them into one page just to be independently discussed. Thanks to JBchrch's find, this is just paraphrasing an NGO's report, raising copyright violation concerns, not an encyclopedic article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Agree with {{u|Hemiauchenia}}. It's pretty much of a summary (rewrite?) of this https://web.archive.org/web/20170713004640/http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/documents/docs/InCo_Report_15Oct.pdf report by a https://archive.crin.org/en/home/rights/themes/violence/un-study/international-ngo-council-violence-against-children.html now-defunct NGO. Almost none of the other sources cited speak about the practice in question in the context of ritual abuse. So it's pretty much a big glob of  material, ripe for Wikipedia:TNT|deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I don't think this article has anything to do with QAnon, at least as currently written. The article at the very least appears to be an improper synthesis of numerous unrelated practices that have not been analysed collectively as "ritual child abuse" in the scholarly literature. The article is also poorly written in a way which I don't think is recoverable, so I think  also applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Reads like someone wanted to force some subjects with very marginal similarity into a patterned category of their own making, neatly structured into subparagraphs with identical headers ("Historical Origins", "Regional Statistics", "Health Consequences", "Policy Initiatives"). Very obviously  and not helpful at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)