Deletion of Bush family conspiracy theory

Comment: per Weregerbil. I could see a well-sourced list of notable conspiracy theories, but this looks more like a collection of blog entries, which violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This violates , , ,  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NPOV||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: No credible reliable sources. Violates  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: per , is an |owned article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OWN)

Comment: Violates , ,  and others. This is an amalgam of disparate allegations which does not exist in this form anywhere from any reliable source. This ad hoc assembly of anti-Bush accusations is a POV soapbox and is original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RS||WP:NOR)

Comment: per , ,  an indiscriminate collection of conspiracy theories
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:V||WP:NOT)

Comment: the recent outbreak of the ''"delete all information that is uncomfortable to Bush"-virus'' is unsettling. The fact that all nominations were made by either the sock-puppet crowd or editors who have been indefinitely banned for thisdisruptive behaviour should suffice as argument. Any problems with sources should not be addressed with an AFD. As to , ''Wikipedia is not meant to delete everything you disagree with.''Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This is tin-foil hat nonsense.  Violates a host of Wikipedia guidelines especially, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)