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

Comment: I'm still not convinced there's an intelligible encyclopedic subject here. There are sources using the term "conspiracy theory" to talk about specific claims and there are sources which talk about the use of conspiracy theories being a trend in one campaign or another -- or in the election in general. Given the latter, I get why there are people arguing to keep. My problem is that it's analogous to "List of lies of the United States presidential election, 2016" based on sources like http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/explaining-scandals-lies-incivility-2016-election-teens/ this, http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/debunking-biggest-lies-trumps-speech this, or http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ben-carson-donald-trump-are-the-least-truthful-candidates-20151215 this. Or a "List of crazy claims of the United States presidential election, 2016" because of sources like http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trumps-craziest-quotes-the-2016-presidential-hopeful-speaks-201568 this or http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/crazy-quotes-2016-campaign-trail-216157 this. There are indeed plenty of sources for both -- talking about individual crazy claims and a pattern of crazy claims. The problem is, "conspiracy theory", like "crazy claim" does not in this usage have any clear meaning such that they can be brought together without ''either'' (a) , or (b) sourcing that simply uses the term (in which case a list of "crazy" claims also fits the bill). As others have pointed out, many of the things called "conspiracy theories" do not include a conspiracy, but are rather just baseless/fringe/outrageous claims. There's plenty of room in the various campaign/election articles for mention of particular claims that attracted significant attention, though. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)