Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This time around we have a quite solid consensus to delete the article.  Sandstein  08:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016
AfDs for this article: Related AfD: Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has already been substantively deleted in all but name by a handful of editors. In its current form it is a WP:COATRACK for an anti-conspiracy POV essay with exactly one sentence left that very generally references the subject of the title. The article fails NPOV and everything of substance that could be connected to the title has been redacted.

That said I would prefer the article be kept. It recently survived, barely, an AfD. Further, the closing was strongly endorsed in a Deletion Review. What has occurred here appears to be a deliberate end run around the previous AfD by editors who presumably did not agree with its outcome. Reasonable people can debate the merits of this article and whether or not it should be kept. But I do not believe that it is right to delete an article by radical redaction after a no-consensus AfD. If you want to delete an article that's fine, but do it honestly at AfD, not by the back door. (Striking a sentence that I believe could be interpreted as impugning the good faith of the editors in question- A/O)

If the community confirms the gutting of all relevant material from the article then I !vote to Delete for the reasons stated above. However, my preference is to Keep the article, conditional on restoration of at least most of the redacted material for the reasons put forth in my Keep !vote in the previous AfD.

I respectfully defer to the community's judgement. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This AfD is WP:POINTY as can be and should probably be closed. That said, I agree that the article has effectively been blanked and edit warred to keep it blanked.  That's a problem. Hobit (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. A couple of quick notes... First I do strongly disagree with the deletion by redaction (blanking of all relevant material) in the article, fair enough. However, the article has in fact been blanked and all that's left is an anti-conspiracy theory declaration (that I agree with but that's neither here nor there). That's not something we want to keep. Secondly the editors in question are blocking attempts to restore any of the blanked material. And lastly the article is very controversial. So much so that the closer of the previous AfD recommended a speedy renomination to try and get consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy close – To be clear, you're nominating the article for deletion and want it kept? AfD is not the place for content disputes. Graham (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, this is not a "content dispute." It is presenting to the community the question of whether we should confirm formally what has already been done informally, i.e. delete the article or whether it should be kept. That is exactly what AfD is for. The previous AfD ended in no consensus with a recommendation for a speedy renomination. The article in its current form does not meet our standards and if that remains the case, it should be deleted as I stated above. The guidelines only require that a rational for deletion be presented. It does not require that the nominator support or agree with the rational. AfD exists precisely to resolve existential questions of this sort. And yes there are a number of complicated issues here as can be seen from the previous AfD. Which is why it needs to be placed before the community for the broadest possible participation in the hope of gaining consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability. In order to establish notability, it must be shown that someone has written about the topic of conspiracy theories in the U.S. presidential election, not that various journalists have written about various individual theories.  "Conspiracy theory" has a specific meaning in the literature, but journalists may stretch it.  So for example the theory that Ted Cruz could not become president because he was born in Canada has been described as a conspiracy theory but is actually a fringe theory.  The theory that Clinton's concussion affected her cognitive abilities is either an unfounded or malicious rumor.  What we need is a source that explains what is meant by a conspiracy theory and outlines some examples from the 2016 election.  And we need to know before we add anything that the author is talking about the same topic.  If no one in reliable sources has chosen to write about the topic of this article then it lacks notability.  The fact that we can find numerous examples where someone has called one theory or other a conspiracy theory (the "but we have sources!" argument) is insufficient to meet notability guidelines.  Otherwise we could have articles such as "Republican sex offenders," "Democrat thieves," "Liberals who text pictures of their genitals," etc.  Each of these articles would be a point of view nightmare, wasting editors' time edit-warring and on talk page arguments, which has happened here.  TFD (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (I've argued above this should be speedy closed, but until then...)
 * keep and restore material We have a lot of conspiracy theories this time around. I don't think it makes sense to have an article for each one (though many, if not all, of the ones in the article are individually quite well sourced and well above our inclusion guidelines.  We have policies for judging notability, and that's WP:N.  This is pretty clearly beyond "news"--these are real (if incorrect) discussions going on, and it should be our job to clarify them to the extent sources allow us to do so.  Basically, I claim there is no basis in policy for deletion. I've seen notability, BLP and a misunderstanding of how we cover hoaxes as justification, but none of those hold water. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete TFD has convinced me. This is a synthesis of a bunch of individual theories, and there is coverage on the individual elements but not the article topic itself.  That it is a POV nightmare is true but not as persuasive as the fact that the sources are talking about the individual events, not the group. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hopeless POV coatrack that is bound to violate BLP and is unencyclopedic.--MONGO 23:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for the exact same reasons I argued just like ... last week (though it seemed to be about 10x longer at the time). BlueSalix (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per TFD. As a stand-alone topic, I don't see evidence this concept exists in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia.  Compiling all such ideas in one article is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.  -- Jayron 32 01:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if these sources were in it before the article was culled, but 30 seconds on Google uncovered plenty of sources that treat "Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election" as a concept in its own right, not a collection of disparate ideas SYNTHed together -
 * "Presidential election brings conspiracies into the light" (Associated Press)
 * "Welcome to the Conspiracy Theory Election" (Newsweek)
 * "The 5 Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theories of 2016" (Politico)
 * "Donald Trump's a Liberal Plant and 5 Other Ridiculous Political Conspiracy Theories" (Men's Journal)
 * "The 10 weirdest 2016 election conspiracy theories" (San Francisco Chronicle)
 * BlueSalix (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These are mostly op-eds and therefore do not meet rs. The exception, from AP merely uses the term "conspiracy theory" in passing.  It does not define "conspiracy theory" or identify any of the "rumors and innuendo" mentioned as conspiracy theories.  Going forward, how would we determine whether speculation about Clinton's health or Trump's alleged ties to Russia were legitimate questions or mere conspiracy theories?  TFD (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: I added Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor as a related AfD above, as relevant to this discussion. Hope this works. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per TFD, and my own comments in the last discussion. -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DeleteConspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 lacks any notability in its self. Excluding perhaps the Trump plant theory the aspects that have been removed lack any notability stand alone, though I question if it does. This article is abit of a coatrack. I question if it's anything more than a povfork to hold non-notable fringe topics such as Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. Thus far I've no evidence other than the affirmative. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - there's no way to have this article be encyclopedic once one removes all the non-RS garbage. I have no idea what "anti-conspiracy theory POV" is. That just sounds strange. Is that like when someone doesn't believe in conspiracy theories and that's supposedly a bad thing or something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, now that the WP:fringe and WP:OR has been removed there is nothing left that is notable for a stand alone article. And frankly the old version should not be "restored", it was a WP:POVFORK and also had WP:UNDUE issues. It should have been deleted. Kierzek (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The election does seem to be full of conspiracy theories, and several media outlets (MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times certainly) state explicitly that they are conspiracy theories - that Clinton had brain damage, that Cruz's dad killed JFK, etc. Now this is all clearly bollocks, but the fact is such things have been a surprisingly substantial part of the campaign on the GOP side. These things have been removed under the guise of BLP, but I believe that is being applied too widely - it seems people would rather pretend such theories don't exist and are using the idea that "Cruz's dad killed JFK" as being defamation to remove it. Saying that without context is defamation, what is not is saying "Trump implied Cruz's dad killed JFK citing a supposed image of Cruz and Oswald. The photo is not of Cruz. Trump repeated these claims despite debunkation." Cite to NYT, WP, CNN, BBC, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and restore. I don't think the present stub version of the article is really worth keeping, but the revision with details was well-sourced, and only WP:SYN in the sense that any article that aggregates multiple opinions and perspectives is.  I do not see any novel thesis being advanced, either in the stub or non-stub versions of the article.  Much has been written about conspiracy theories, in American politics in general, and also in the 2016 election cycle, to warrant an article on that subject.  There are even good sources for specific theories that we can use.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Coatrack. Should have been deleted in the first AfD, it was running 22-12, which seems decisive. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with BlueSalix, there are many RS that put all these theories in the same context, so it's appropriate to have an article. JerryRussell (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, as it should have been the first time; that was a terrible close which should have been overturned and hopefully will be this time. Loads of synthesis, including an attempt to end-run round the Clinton brain damage AfD.  Just because reliable sources happen to comment on lunatic ones doesn't make a cobbling together of them notable. Black Kite (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - 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 this, this, or this. Or a "List of crazy claims of the United States presidential election, 2016" because of sources like this or 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) WP:SYNTH, 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;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, if you look at this article not just as a violation of Wikipedia's rules, but as an 'attractive nuisance' which will encourage editors to add allegations to it, and of course pave the way for the sequel, Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2020... or why not create one for 2008 and file all those Kenya birthplace stories? &rarr; StaniStani 18:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories?? Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment (Weak delete?): This article, if kept, needs to be held on a very, very short leash, to avoid it being flooded with unreliable garbage. I am not confident that that could be done.  I do acknowledge that there is enough info out there to probably pass GNG.  p  b  p  19:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per TFD and others.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think we'll be able to keep this under control of NPOV. Most of these things will be forgotten as soon as the election is over, anyway. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm going to quote two other editors:
 * On Clinton: "The article was created to subvert this AfD on Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. The media has to feed the 24×7 news frenzy, and throw-away attacks are described in detail. However, Wikipedia should not contain such attacks except with an after-the-fact encyclopedic treatment based on secondary sources with an analysis of the long-term effects of the attacks." (Johnuniq)
 * On Cruz: "The section exists to include only negative information about a living person with dubious sourcing. It's a repository for information too dubious for the Cruz bio article and this article title doesn't make the BLP violations okay. Stuff said about Ted Cruz that doesn't have enough reliable sources to be in his biography is not an article we need to create under any title." (DHeyward)
 * In summary, "it's-in-the-news" does not cancel normal BLP standards. And just because several RS took the time to dispell a rumor, that does not mean that an article needs to be created that would synthesise the commentary into a coat rack article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Incubate, and salt until the day after the Electoral College decision (20 December 2016) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, plus as per WP:IAR, the encyclopedia must be maintainable.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per TFD and my past reasons in AfD's of this ilk; still a WP:COATRACK and not appropriate for this venue at all.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. All valid content (if any) related to these theories should be included in other pages. None of these theories seems to be sufficiently notable to deserve a page. Each of them is a textbook example of WP:Recentism. All together? An example of WP:Coatrack. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - this page was nominated for deletion, the closure was "No consensus", and it was brought to Deletion Review, where the closure was endorsed. This should be sufficient to require a moratorium for a few months, and you shouldn't re-nominate it just 2 days later. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who cares? Even if you were right, WP:IAR alone overrides all procedural crap. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the Keep !vote. I've been feeling a little lonely on here. That said, I felt obliged to renominate due to the fact that it's been stubbed by a handful of editors who blanked all material related to the subject of the article and left only an anti-conspiracy theory paragraph. I am more than satisfied that the subject meets WP:GNG and I am unconvinced by the arguments alleging violations of BLP and SYNTH in the article before it was blanked. Unfortunately repeated efforts to restore most of the redacted material by various editors have been blocked by aggressive edit warring. In its current form the article is an empty shell with nothing but a POV attack on conspiracy theorists. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * With apologies to one of our former presidents, I view invoking WP:IAR as something that should be safe, legal and rare. It certainly should not be invoked as a defense for abuse of process in an effort to delete an article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: An AfD, when closes, imposes no such moratorium. In fact, the closer stated: "Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate." Which is what happened. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are omitting the small detail that the article was first deleted in all but name, without bothering with any renomination to AfD in violation of WP:BLANK and with no respect for the lack of consensus on the part of an AfD that had very widespread participation. This article may well end up being deleted via this discussion. While disappointing, I can live with that, because that is how we delete articles on here that are controversial. Blanking an article is an extreme act, and a specie of de-facto deletion. While I concede there are very rare circumstances where it is appropriate and have even done it myself a few times, it should never be done without the strongest possible consensus and/or in cases where it is non-controversial. The fact that it was done in this situation is bad enough. But once editors objected the redacted material should have been restored. Removal of all substantives content, again excepting a handful of special cases is improper per WP:BLANK. If you believed that all or most of the material in the article needed to go, the correct action was to renominate it at AfD. No editor or small group of editors have the right to unilaterally blank an article in this manner. That you don't seem to realize how inappropriate this was is extremely disconcerting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, User:The Four Deuces puts this better than I can. Unless there are reliable sources on the specific topic of "conspiracy theories about the 2016 US presidential election", then this is at best going to be a pile of WP:SYNTH.  Furthermore, many of the "Keep" votes are rooted entirely in procedural argument about the previous AFD/DRV rather than addressing the substance of the argument, or argue for the inclusion of a list of fringe theories rather than conspiracy theories (this would still be WP:SYNTH, but would at least be accurate).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete, this reeks of WP:SYN. Not that I blame anyone especially: the current election is dominated by a man who appears to be irrational and who has surrounded himself with zealots and cranks, so undoubtedly there will be a very high degree of bullshit in the coming weeks. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And wouldn't we want to document this bullshit as a warning to our future? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; looks like WP:SYN with a dose of recentism (which is Wikipedia's biggest problem). More-over its originally and primarily WP:CONTENTFORK to get past an AFD of the Hillary content article, using Synth techniques to justify a broader article. Content that is not a BLP issue can be merged into relevant articles (not that I saw much that was worth it). --Errant (chat!) 14:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia should not be a repository for repeating wholly-false, absurd and damaging personal attacks against living people, which is what these "theories" about Cruz and Clinton amount to. If, at some point down the line, there becomes significant academic and media discussion of "conspiracy theories about these presidential candidates," we could consider an article. But in the heat of this election, it looks like a COATRACK for negative campaigning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest early close As the OP who was in the odd position of arguing to Keep the article (it's a long story; see the nominating statement) I am compelled to acknowledge the obvious. There is a very strong consensus in favor of deleting the article, and I entertain no realistic hope of reversing that. While respectfully disagreeing with that consensus, I am nonetheless obliged to bow to it. There is no reason to drag this out any longer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, Why is this article's subject matter any more (or less, depending on how one views it) special than the myriad of other articles covering conspiracy theories of other events. We do not have to document them as credible claims, but we do need to catalogue them as widespread and popular, significant events. Otherwise we are whitewashing the insanity, trying to paint a pretty picture of the United States' political climate. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So we should keep it to spread the Truth&reg; about American politics? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is unclear to me whether the article's various sections (such as the passage that describes a rumor / fringe theory that Clinton had a seizer) describe the hoax itself, or an alleged conspiracy to promulgate such as hoax. The former would be outside of the scope of this article (but that's what the article mostly consisted of, with Cruz content added after the first AfD concluded).
 * Thus, listing various rumors and then adding a "Conspiracy theories" headline on an article is pure synthesis and hues too close to BLP violations. After the election, when the dust settles, it would be a proper time to revive this article (provided sufficient coverage would exist). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Help me out here as I am a new user. "Delete" sounds like a fairly permanent action to me. "When the dust settles" will the article's history still be available to work from, or will anyone who wishes to make the article be forced to do so entirely from scratch? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Most admin will undelete articles to allow an established editor to extract sections for a plausibly notable article if it emerges. Delete looks permanent, but all deleted articles can be seen by and undeleted by admins (like myself) under a set of policies.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Restore the blanked contents and rename to Fringe theories in the United States presidential election, 2016. Contested material will keep popping up everywhere until the election is over, and probably some time afterwards. This article is a great WP:ONEWAY landing pad for such claims, similar to jurisprudence established at 9/11 conspiracy theories. — JFG talk 21:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 9/11 conspiracy theories seems more like a classic example of WP:MERGE than WP:ONEWAY. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Further more, wouldn't this be an example of the walled garden that WP:ONEWAY hopes to avoid?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Contentious material about living individuals in a contentious topic area with discretionary sanctions should require a firm consensus to keep, rather than a firm consensus to delete. The topic is not the problem here, the content that was removed per BLP didn't stay focused on the aim and scope of the topic of the article; instead, it drifted off to unacceptable material that focused too much on the individuals. The material was cherry-picked from RS and then used to synth this content together, which resulted in a massive BLP violation, that's unacceptable. Clintons campaign article has a section on her health, and Trumps campaign article has sections on Cruz/controversies/fringe/conspiracy theories, there's no reason to create a POV fork full of BLP violations.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  00:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete To condense the reasons I added at the end of the last AFD, this article in its full state (i.e. before the deletion of various paragraphs) is synthesis of various claims and allegations and it is too soon for them to be considered a notable topic. Most of them also fail to meet the definition of a "conspiracy theory". After the election is over, the claims about the winner will probably live on; some will believe Clinton cheated if she wins, or others will continue to question Trump's ties with Putin if he wins. Truly notable theories will have their own articles, similar to claims about Obama. But it is too soon for claims about Clinton, Cruz and Trump to be lumped together in this manner. In the future there may be discussion about what role (if any) these claims had in affecting the outcome of the election. That is when the theories would become notable as a topic and this article would become appropriate. Until then, it should be deleted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. There is a lot of disinformation surrounding this election, much of it deliberate. The analysis of what, why, who, and how may eventually become encyclopedic. But at this point, the article seems to be here less for that purpose and more as a way of putting the disinformation into the encyclopedia and then pointing to it to say "see! with all that smoke there must be a fire!". That is, to spread it around even more. That is the opposite of our purpose as an encyclopedia. So I think it would be best to wait (at least, after the election) until time has made more clear what aspects of this subject are encyclopedic. If I had any faith that we could clearly, decisively, and unambiguously debunk the rumors that deserved it, I might have a different opinion, but Wikipedia is not Snopes and shouldn't try to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/donald-trumps-latest-conspiracy-theory-im-afraid-the-election-is-going-to-be-rigged http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/hillarys-health-conspiracy-theory https://newrepublic.com/minutes/135452/trump-putin-conspiracy-theory-gone-mainstream http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/conspiracy-theories-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-214183 https://medium.com/@sahiljain07/2016-elections-conspiracy-theory-df48fb23401f#.4m4fz9y06 http://www.newsweek.com/welcome-conspiracy-theory-election-456654 https://uk.news.yahoo.com/10-strangest-conspiracy-theories-us-145536675.html http://www.sfgate.com/elections/article/The-10-weirdest-2016-election-conspiracy-theories-7377054.php and many more sources found in google. There are many of these articles with different spins on this, some are unreliable, but there are non-trivial numbers of ones in reputable places too.  Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: it's an essay, not an article. Jonathunder (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Only because it's been reduced to that state with contentious edits. Followed by an AfD wholesale. Is this gaming the system? No clue, I haven't been around long enough to tell. Feels like it though. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: At the previous AfD I supported deletion on the grounds of a lack of citations specifically about the topic of conspiracy theories in the U.S. presidential election as opposed to citations about individual theories. Since then I have seen several reliable sources talking about the overall topic of conspiracy theories in the U.S. presidential election. I also picked one of the conspiracy theories that was properly sourced and tried to discuss it on the article talk page, only to find that several individuals have removed all of the content and will not allow any conspiracy theory to be listed on the page, no matter how well sourced. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and consider re-creating the day after the election Per Unscintillating's `excellent argument below. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note there appears to be some incidences of off-Wiki gaming occurring vis a vis this AfD (undoubtedly in coordination with the on-Wiki gaming) -, , etc. BlueSalix (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fascinating! Why is it claimed that the article is "pro-Hillary/anti-Trump"? jps (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reality has a well-known liberal bias. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete as WP:BLP–WP:NOTNEWS superstorm Seeing as how everything here falls under BLP restrictions, it is a magnet for people who don't even know what a conspiracy theory is (hint: Clinton's health is just a false rumor) and people laying down "I'm just saying" slanders, never mind reporting the various rumors accurately. Even when it isn't reporting ongoing stories, it's mostly about making sure people don't forget whichever flash-in-the-pan crazy political rumor is making the rounds. Sure, you can cite any of this stuff out of the various mainstream media sources: that's why these lines get fed to them, to make sure that they get spread around. Is there any way we can report thins stuff in a responsible and encyclopedic fashion? Not really. Mangoe (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding among some "Delete" !voters about terminology. Conspiracy theory = False rumor. The term "conspiracy theory" is, inherently, a term of delegitimization. "Conspiracy theory" is NOT a synonym for "conspiracy" or "theory about a conspiracy." For example, Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. BlueSalix (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what the introduction of conspiracy theory says, or the dictionary definition provided here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's exactly what it says: "The term conspiracy theory has derogatory connotations, suggesting explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant, often producing imaginary hypotheses that are not true." Aside from the obvious gamers, everyone here seems to be !voting Delete out of personal offense that a CT they happen to believe was among those listed in this article. I'm starting to feel like this article may have been a sociology experiment. BlueSalix (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So people are either gaming the system or they believe a particular conspiracy theory to be true if they opted for a deletion argument?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * While a conspiracy theory is a false rumor, it is more than that. A conspiracy theory is "a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal,  [It is] notoriously resistant to falsification … with new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming evidence.” (M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton quoted in Scientific American.)  Powerful and sinister does not mean groups like the DNC or RNC, but groups like the New World Order or illuminati.  TFD (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But aren't George Soros and Vladimir Putin considered NWO/Illuminati by fringe groups? Doesn't Alex Jones constantly talk about Hillary being an NWO puppet? Doesn't Hillary Clinton say Trump and the alt-right are controlled by Putin? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an inherent problem with all pages (such as that one) that combine unrelated subjects, but misrepresent them as something essentially the same. Some of the "theories" are obvious nonsense, others could be legitimate theories about actual conspiracies, but they are all dumped together and discredited simply by the name of this page. Hence "delete" per WP:Coatrack. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All true. The problem for Wikipedia editors is where to draw the line between legitimate speculation and conspiracism.   TFD (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: another great source published during this debate: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/trump-black-latino-voters-national-diversity-coalition Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to userspace/draftspace until reliable sources about the subject as a whole exist There are plenty of RSs about individual conspiracy theories during this election. But I've yet to see one that actually discusses the phenomenon of conspiracy theories during this election as a whole. There will be some eventually, of that I have no doubt. But until then, Wikipedia should not be write about the phenomenon as it is too soon to speak authoritatively on it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * About journalistic coverage of multiple fringe theories in this election as a whole, several such sources have been quoted in this AfD and the previous one. — JFG talk 09:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Such information can be adequately covered by a sentence or two in other articles. The issue is the lack of support for collecting these into a single article on this concept.  -- Jayron 32 12:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do any of those sources talk about the conspiracy theories that won't hit popular consciousness until next week? What about the ones that won't show up till next month? That's my problem (hence why I keep saying "too soon"): We're not done with the election season and we have no idea what new CS's will show up, and whether or not those new CS's will drastically change the overall tone or analysis of this subject. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.


 * Delete per WP:PROFRINGE. Anything that actually needs to be covered can be covered on one of the many existing 2016 election pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This would seem to be inline with WP:ONEWAY. Placing the material in one of the existing articles that it. Where applicable and not limited by another policy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.