Deletion of Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election

Comment: as an inappropriate 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: as an obvious . Even if we were going to have a separate article, this title would be inappropriate for it, since it implicitly lends credence to a conspiracy theory in violation of ; it would be like having an article for "Alleged irregularities in Barack Obama's citizenship
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: per ,  and . This article lends undue weight to the idea that there was widespread voter fraud in the election (regardless of the author's intended purpose), which has been categorically disproved. This topic has already been addressed in other articles as discussed above, and no more credence should be given to it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:FRINGE||WP:RSUW)

Comment: per . While the fact that Trump did not concede yet and is still claiming fraud is quite historic, having a separate article listing all these allegations seems pointless
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: and I would suggest a  close. Blatant 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per POVFORK, , and . We don't address every haunted house, UFO sighting, or one of Donald Trump's 25,000 lies. I would not oppose a ''very selective merge'' back to List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election or another appropriate target
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: per  and the suggestions of other editors
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: due to , and being an example of both , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:MILL||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Agree with all of the  comments
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: as a . Any legal challenges arising from the election can be mentioned on the election's page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Merge Draft:Conspiracy theories related to the 2020 United States elections into this article''': I believe that the edits made since the nomination have removed most of the content that violated  and there is a discussion at Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election#False_claims_of_fraud_section_is_becoming_bloated|the talk page of the Presidential Election article to not add all of the claims of fraud, while there is a pending merge discussion at the 'Stop the Steal' article.  The claims of fraud and fact checks of those claims are being reported by | reliable sources.  The only issue I see above is that the text was too bias and was following a point of view not supported by sources at the time. I will say that I agree with Bilorv that the lawsuit content belongs on the 'List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election' article instead and thus the lawsuit content should be merged there, if there is anything here that has not been covered there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS)

Comment: All I see from this discussion is editors suggesting deletion for the same couple of reasons over and over again and giving no other reason, with one exception from GP (that is not an issue solved by deletion). This is not how Wikipedia works, please see WP:!vote and emocracy. While some editors have offered suggestions on redirecting etc., I will suggest that, unless you've got something to add other than "per nom", "per others" or "per user" etc., there isn't any point really adding another !vote. I would also point that the one "keep" supporter made claim that without evidence is baseless, and I would recommend they provide some evidence. Remember, this is a deletion '''discussion''', not a deletion vote
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D)

Comment: I think any claim in this article that comes from a  should be considered for inclusion in the 2020 presidential election article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)