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

Comment: I think  applies here. Which means this is simply a bunch of fringe theories that, if they were unsourced, would automatically be deleted. However, there are reliable sources available. At this point, I'm leaning '''merge and condense the information into United States presidential election, 2016''' (otherwise, it'll just inspire editors to add more conspiracy theories that can be defamatory
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE)

Comment: This "article" is a  and also has  issues for a stand alone article; seems more appropriate for the National Enquirer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: per . Should this article exist at some point? Absolutely. By this time next year, if this article doesn't exist, I'll be the one to re-create it. But right now? No. Not just "No," but "Hell no." The election season isn't even close to being done yet. There's no way to analyze patterns or view this subject as a whole until then. We can't discuss the lingering effects of them at all. Hell, just making the article is a weak form of , as there are no sources discussing the totality of these theories as part of this election. The only purpose this article can serve is to debunk the conspiracy theories contained therein. While I am a huge (YUUUUUUGE) fan of debunkings, WP is just not the place for it. let's leave it to the fact checkers until we have some RSs commenting on the phenomenon as a whole
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Pinged here above. Article clearly passes PROFRINGE, only question is if it is ? My read is no
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Consider it a  containment spinout rather than an independent list-type topic. GNG would be met even if it were considered an independent topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:ONEWAY)

Comment: It's . It's a  of things the various editors think should be included, rather than a genuine article. There appear to be no agreed upon criteria for inclusion. And worst of all, virtually everything listed is a  violation. The really important items will be dealt with at relevant election or biography pages. The rest are simply an invitation to POV pushers to add their favorite. And if you agree that's happening now - just wait a month
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:LIST||WP:BLP)

Comment: Fails . Where are the sources about this subject? This loosk to be a mishmash of various incidents a source happened to call a "conspiracy theory". Anything beyond that is . See : {{tq|"Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, ''only that the grouping or set in general has been''."}} (italics added). In other words, while no one source has to touch on ''all'' of these, notability is based on ''the group'', not sources about individual examples. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:OR||WP:LISTN)

Comment: per . I think this article began as a good-faith effort to describe (with support from reliable sources) conspiracy theories that have been floating around. However, over the last few days, things have gotten out of hand at this article and it now includes claims that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theories_of_the_United_states_presidential_election,_2016&diff=735710687&oldid=735710626 Trump is "Putin's patsy" and that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theories_of_the_United_states_presidential_election,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=735706664 Trump is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler. Furthermore, as other editors have noted already, a large section of the article was copied and pasted from another recently-deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor). I am not opposed to re-creating this article (or articles about the specific theories) in due time once commentators have provided enough commentary about the history, significance, or impact of the existence of these theories, but right now, I think it is best to delete this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL14)

Comment: WP:RECENTISM and ,  in short, non-encyclopedic garbage.   Wikipedia is not part of the blogosphere echo chamber.  Let Breitbart and Daily Kos fight this shit out
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: This article is a  that serves to highlight information that would be  in articles about the individuals. There would be no problem having a conspiracy theory article about presidential elections in general, providing it was based on |secondary sources with an analysis of each "theory" and its long-term significance to those on each side. The reason there are :Category:Conspiracy theories regarding Barack Obama|Obama conspiracy theory articles is that the attacks on Obama have been long term—many of them were started in an attempt to sway the 2008 election, and are half heartedly continued today. The 2016 election article is a list of attacks mounted by one side against the other, and there should not be an article with a list of news-of-the-day reports/blogs on them. Anything significant should be in an article on the individual or the individual's election campaign
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:UNDUE||WP:SECONDARY)

Comment: Passes  - everything sourced to RS (''Washington Post'', ''New York Times'', CNBC, etc.) and RS establish these ideas, though ludicrous, pass our GNG for sheer volume and breadth of repetition, not unlike other weird ideas like Roswell UFO incident, etc. The article is a sober, academic treatment and is not actually ''promoting'' the ideas, which is a key criteria of PROFRINGE. The first section of this entry, further, establishes the underlying sociological and anthropological importance of irrational thinking in American politics by reference to academic study, justifying an entry providing deeper examination. Finally, not a "hodge podge" but meets our definition of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE||WP:LISTDD)

Comment: Definitely passes  as these ideas are written about in mainstream outlets not linked to the original conspiratorial source. I think it might fail  and could possibly be merged into United States Presidential Election, 2016
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Many RS have discussed the election's conspiracy theories '''collectively''', in enough depth for . All these articles are about multiple conspiracy theories: two on both sides, one about Trump-targeting ones, and three about Clinton-targeting ones
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)