Deletion of Speculation that Iapetus is artificial

Comment: Doesn't the title of the article scream  and ?  Re-reading the article, the 2nd paragraph, which leads to a source, is documented by a known conspiracy theorist.  Personally, I think it's  if a consipracy theorist is trying to claim a conspiracy on a specific subject...doesn't really count as a source IMO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POV||WP:POV)

Comment: What's the difference between "speculation that" and "Special:Prefixindex/Allegations|allegations of"? (Yeah, yeah,  ...). Nothing valuable to add to this discussion except that this would probably be |undue weight if it got merged back to Iapetus (moon); sourcing at present seems a bit week to keep it even at its present location
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:UNDUE)