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 no consensus. Numerically, we're at 22 delete to 12 keep, which is a substantial majority but not quite consensus. The arguments boil down to "it's reliably sourced" vs. "it's a synthesized fringe coatrack." These are all valid opinions within the range of editorial judgment usually applied to articles of this type, so I can't determine whose arguments ought to carry more weight. Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate.  Sandstein  19:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A hodge-podge coatrack of mostly mistitled and unrelated conspiracy theories, none of which independently arise to the standard of notability we require for an article about an ongoing event. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:PROFRINGE - 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 WP:LISTDD. LavaBaron (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, by comparison, in a related AfD BlueSalix noted the case of Boyd Bushman as an example of PROFRINGE, while explaining this is not a case of that. LavaBaron (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly contains sufficient RS to establish notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Definitely passes WP:PROFRINGE as these ideas are written about in mainstream outlets not linked to the original conspiratorial source. I think it might fail WP:NOTNEWS and could possibly be merged into United States Presidential Election, 2016. --DrCruse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:LISTN. 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 WP:OR. See WP:LISTN: "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;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They're in the section titled "references." LavaBaron (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to highlight any? &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Harper's Magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, Media Matters for America, Snopes, Slate, NBC News, The Intercept, Gawker, Real Clear Politics, and Huffington Post. LavaBaron (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ...Ok, let's look at each one.
 * Harper's - published in 1964. Not likely about conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election of 2016.
 * New York Times - There are zero NY Times citations in the article.
 * Washington Post - I guess you could mean either of two:
 * One is about a particular conspiracy theory: Hillary's neurological health. This one is the best source in the article you created about that rumor, Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, which is presently snowballing at another AfD.
 * The other one is about a particular conspiracy theory: Trump as a plant to support Hillary.
 * Media Matters - Hannity said something about Hillary's health. Nothing here about the subject of this page. Just another example.
 * Snopes - Not a typical one to highlight, but again, there are two:
 * One is also about the Hillary neurological health conspiracy theory.
 * The other is also about Trump as a plant for Hillary.
 * Slate - Doesn't even mention anything being a conspiracy theory. It's about the specific example of the supposed Trump-Putin connection (which other sources have called a conspiracy theory). Still not about the subject of this page, though.
 * NBC News - Also doesn't mention "conspiracy theory". About the specific example of Trump's "rigged" election.
 * The Intercept - About the specific example of the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory.
 * Gawker - Two articles from Gawker, both about the specific example of Trump being a plant for Hillary.
 * Real Clear Politics - About the specific example of Hillary's neurological health.
 * Huffington Post - About the specific example of Trump being a plant for Hillary.
 * Not even one of these supports the notability of this page, which requires not a bunch of sources about a bunch of specific examples of stories that have been called conspiracy theories, but sources about the group that is "conspiracy theories of the 2016 election". &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply listing every reference in the article and then yelling "irrelevant!" doesn't do much to make your case. Sources do not need to (and rarely do they) reference the title of a WP article verbatim. That's not how this works. I'm shocked you believe it is. (Also, please dial it back to about a 9. Thanks.) LavaBaron (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a weird response (assuming it's neither disingenuous nor an intentional misrepresentation). Where have I said they need to reference the title of an article verbatim? They merely have to be about the subject of the article, and not simply about examples you've decided are part of a larger subject. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 04:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They're all directly about the subject of the article. The fact you're doubling down on the idea they're not, when anyone can click on any of them and read them, seems to be indicating you're either (A) hoping no one will, or, (B) claiming hey have to reference the subject by name. Which is sort-of ... odd. LavaBaron (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - encyclopedic, as long as we stay firm on good sourcing. I do appreciate this has stupendous potential as a foolishness magnet - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Rhododendrites's concise analysis of the sourcing. Keep this embarrassment away from here and leave it to the tinfoil side of the Internet, please.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Many RS have discussed the election's conspiracy theories collectively, in enough depth for WP:LISTN. All these articles are about multiple conspiracy theories: two on both sides, one about Trump-targeting ones, and three about Clinton-targeting ones.
 * Fox News Latino: discusses Trump plant theory and Putin agent theory, along with Trump campaign's support for various others
 * Chicago Tribune op-ed: "Donald Trump loves conspiracy theories. So do his foes." Describes many, on both sides, in detail
 * CBS: titled "A guide to the conspiracy theories about Donald Trump"
 * CNN: "the Republican presidential nominee has repeatedly amplified and offered roundabout endorsements to conspiracy theories"
 * NBC: titled "Trump's Conspiracy Theories Aren't Far Outside GOP Mainstream"
 * Slate (partisan): titled "The Real Meaning of All Those Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories About Hillary’s Health"
 * Together, there's enough material to justify a respectable introduction and summary to meet LISTN. FourViolas (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Those are substantially better than anything in the article currently. Might be enough for me -- will come back to this later. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 12:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you... if you want to get right to the bottom of something. a quality survey on a short schedule, is the guy you want.  E  Eng  19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks. But here are a few more good ones if you're on the fence:
 * a NYT op-ed by Middle East foreign policy experts looks at the effect Trump's are already having in the Middle East
 * A WaPo news article ties them into other Middle East CTs.
 * The Daily Beast reports on a quantitative analysis of Trump's supporters' affinity for CT-related topics
 * Politico covers a meta-debate over the consequences and proper response to all this conspiracy theorizing.
 * Wondering if noticed these when coming to the conclusion that "there are no sources discussing these theories as part of this election." FourViolas (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wondering if ignored the rest of my post in favor of quoting the one part that could be taken out of context so easily. Not trying to be a dick, but seriously: my whole comment was about how we haven't hit the end of the conspiracy theories yet. More are all but guaranteed. It's not rocket surgery to assume I meant that particular sentence in the same context. Just to be clear, I've edited my original comment.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was an honest question; it's easy to miss things, and you didn't mention them. But I don't understand the rest of your rationale. Since we do have RS analyzing and commenting on the phenomenon as a whole (so far), I don't see a policy-based reason to refrain from writing an article until the election season is over. You might as well say we should delete Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, because there's no way to know what the long-term outcome or lingering effects will be. FourViolas (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ...it's easy to miss things, and you didn't mention them. Fair enough, now let's not discuss that point any more. It won't advance this discussion and could turn things adversarial. As it is, I am writing with a smile on my face, so let's keep it that way.
 * You might as well say we should delete Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, because there's no way to know what the long-term outcome or lingering effects will be. Yep. I'd vastly prefer to wait until the campaign was over to write that article. But (and of course, there's a but) that article doesn't have the potential for abuse and drama this one has, and that's a big factor in my vote. So I'll deal with having an article about her campaign before it's done because that's only going to attract the usual drama of random IPs adding weasel words and the occasional rabidly-anti-Hillary editor wanting to insert something about some conspiracy theory about her. The conspiracy theory article, on the other hand, is going to be a magnet for every far-right and far-left editor we have (and, given the nature of this election, a good chunk of the moderate-left and moderate-right editors) to butt heads over how to describe each conspiracy theory and how much weight to lend Every. Goddamned. Sentence. That smacking sound you hear, by the way, is me facepalming at the mere thought of all that drama. (it's a truly epic facepalm. The facepalm heard 'round the world, as it were.) However, if we wait until the election is done, we can at least point to sources analyzing the theories with the benefit of hindsight, making for sources which are much clearer in their tone and depictions, and not focused on debunking. That, then makes it easier for whichever editor is going by the source to win that particular fight. So at least they'll be quicker fights if we wait. I dread the thought of the drama on that talk page the week before election day if we keep it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You got an honest laugh out of me, too! Thank you very much for the detailed explanation; I see where you're coming from, and the desire to protect the wiki from nightmarish election drama is a fair IARgument. I'm personally willing to cross my fingers, grit my teeth, and pray to the page protection gods, but you have a good point. FourViolas (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this, I'm still of the position that this should be deleted. While there are sources about people using conspiracy theories as a tactic, about there being a number of them out there this election cycle, etc. I'm still not seeing a distinct encyclopedic subject here -- not any more than we could pull sources together to create list of smears of the 2016 election, controversies of the 2016 election, lies of the 2016 election, etc. There are reliable sources about all of those, but the subjects discussed are actually tactics of the candidates and their supporters (i.e. the campaigns, the issues, and in rare cases the specific controversies/conspiracies/smears/scandals/whatever other style of coats we might put on a rack). I want to add, as well, that the content of the article is basically a recreation of two of LavaBaron's other articles -- one deleted (Clinton brain damage conspiracy theory), one still up (Trump plant theory) -- and almost nothing else. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – This provides a useful destination to document outlandish claims, hopefully preventing the repeated badgering of the main election articles and endless discussions about notability, sourcing and due weight of such claims in main articles. — JFG talk 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:TOOSOON. 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 WP:SYNTH, 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. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants not sure I agree yet, but you have some valid points I'm going to marinate on and reconsider my own !vote in light of; thanks for providing such a thorough comment and rationale. LavaBaron (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I'm inclined to keep, you have a point that this is going to be a major foolishness magnet - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A "foolishness magnet" is exactly what we need to focus such allegations in an easily-manageable space; this will save countless headaches elsewhere. Besides it is encyclopedic in demonstrating the absurdity of fringe theories on both sides of this political choice. — JFG talk 14:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that there's a finite pool of foolishness into which this article will dip, drawing foolishness from other articles. I, on the other hand, hold as gospel truth that (almost certainly apocryphal) old 'Einstein' quote. "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEWAY is a powerful tool for shooing fringe theorists away from main articles and towards this one. This one can in turn be handled using already-established discretionary sanctions, including protection. WP has taken on human stupidity in the past, and...well, mostly survived. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't address my point (which I admit I implied instead of stating). I don't think that one article being a hotbed of drama is going to tamp down on the drama going on anywhere else. I've seen with my own eyes how an editor involved in one case of drama can get just as caught up in one or more other cases of drama. I mean, seriously: Do we really think that adding an article ripe for controversy (while dampening our ability to appeal to our Almighty Lord of All, the Reliable Source (hallowed be their urls)) is going to make for less controversy? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete There appears to be a strong consensus (!16-4-2) at Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor to delete that page, which was copied-and-pasted by the author to a section on this article as a way to circumvent that AFD. It is inappropriate for that material to be removed by consensus yet stay against that decision just because it's in a collective topic article, nor should we have to discuss it again. This could be summarized int a couple sentences in another article. Reywas92Talk 19:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Pinged here above. Article clearly passes PROFRINGE, only question is if it is WP:SYNTH? My read is no. BlueSalix (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:TOOSOON (Wikipedia is not a newspaper; let's have things settle down). I believe that synthesis & coatrack applies as well, and quite POV. I also concur with the arguments presented at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor]] -- WP is not a place for unsubstantiated rumors even if they have been debunked. This borders on BLS violation, along with NPOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - If you take away the lead sentence and the para about a 1964 essay (which none of the sources used even mention), you have over 80% of the content left being devoted to Clinton. That same content about Clinton was recently deleted in another AfD. I don't see any reason to retain it here either. And the WaPo ref is still being misquoted, which implies that some of the conspiracy theories may have merit.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  20:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just addressed most of those concerns, but they're all content-related. Do you have an opinion on the inherent notability of the topic?FourViolas (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think WP:PROFRINGE 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). epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Otherwise, it will inspire a flood of similar articles for every election and ballot measure at every level of government worldwide. It's pretty easy to use Google to research this topic. 5Q5 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's reliably sourced, even though it's theories. Google is not really a good place to "just" research on any topic, much less this one... epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I edited the article a bit to remove intricate detail and off topic content (diff). The article is still a bit "pulp journalism" so not changing to a Keep vote yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep -- friends, romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come not to praise Wikipedia but to bury its astonish pro-conservative bias. There is an article on the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama is a Muslim, an article on the conspiracy theory that Obama is a Kenyan, an article on thr conspiracy theory that Obama is the antichrist for crying out loud, yet our ultra-conservative, white "nationalist" ('we're the only ones not allowed to have ethnic pride!" Wailed the poor deeply opressed white men who run this cabal) overlords refuse an omnibus article on the many, many, many, many well-sourced and yet to be disproven Trump conspiracy theories? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, friends. Join the side of reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedia Sovereign (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Did someone say "foolishness magnet"? We're already hosting Hitler comparisons. A source mentioned it, so I guess it belongs? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a WP:POVFORK that serves to highlight information that would be WP:UNDUE 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 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. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment My, my, my, Wikipedia's army of angry, sclerotic white men are out in full force today! Anything to save our dear leader, beloved of the Klan, and savior of the white race, right friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedia Sovereign (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DEL14. 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 Trump is "Putin's patsy" and that 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 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. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I think the article is becoming a parody page (diff), and is best deleted. Here's a sample, in case the article gets wiped out:
 * "An extraordinary interdisciplinary consensus of psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, clinical social workers, psychiatric nurses, neurologists, therapists, psychometricians, and other mental health professionals have expressed their worries that, in their professional opinion, Trump suffers from a serious, disabling mental illness-- of an order of magnitutde greater than the usual low-level mental disturbance required to enter politics. This view has also been voiced, and endorsed, by prominent laypersons. According to a widely published report, Trump requires an extraordinarily potent cocktail of mind-altering drugs and a round-the-clock regimen of psychoanalysis to manage his fragile psyche."


 * K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This looks like a coatrack. I question how many of these items individually could stand on their own. I note, as linked above several times, Hilary's Neurological condition theory has had an article based off of it deleted. The Election rigging theory doesn't even seem to be a conspiracy theory but random comments by Trump on how he could possible lose and commentary based off of it. Does "Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016" have any notability in itself? I'm not convinced it meets GNG. Stand alone, only the sections on Trump might meet GNG but I'm not convinced.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I concur with the above. As written, the article appears to be about "Media coverage of conspiracy theories (...)", not about the theories themselves. The topic is ill defined and is not suitable for an encyclopedia article yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Coatrack that fails to meet requirement of GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: per all arguments above.Alhanuty (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete:, and others have said most of what I would say. The article subject is ill-defined, and not notable in itself, per GNG. Perhaps in a year or two there may be RS about "Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016" as a topic, but right now it feels like a coatrack to hang deleted content and sundry press reports on, and a magnet for fringe/partisan stuff floating around the internet. Not a suitable article at this time. --  Begoon &thinsp; talk  17:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete TOOSOON crap-magnet coatrack.  E Eng  17:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - both collectively and individually, there have been many reliable sources about this field. They are not just one day's news. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * delete - WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TRIVIA in short, non-encyclopedic garbage.  Wikipedia is not part of the blogosphere echo chamber.  Let Breitbart and Daily Kos fight this shit out. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Except not a single one of the 39 references in this article are blogs, unless you count Politico, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CBS News, MSNBC, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, and The Guardian as "blogs". LavaBaron (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Except (quote from the article): "The following Monday the National Enquirer ran a front-page feature titled "Hillary Clinton's Secret Health Crisis" while the Drudge Report posted a photo showing Clinton tripping on a flight of stairs, in which it was insinuated the accident was a result of medical issues." cited to this: . Blogosphere garbage echoing blogosphere garbage.. Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This "article" is a WP:POVFORK and also has WP:UNDUE issues for a stand alone article; seems more appropriate for the National Enquirer. Kierzek (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Consider it a WP:ONEWAY containment spinout rather than an independent list-type topic. GNG would be met even if it were considered an independent topic. Rhoark (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is extensively sourced with WP:RS citations which IMO more than satisfies the standards in WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE. To the extent that there may be issues, including possibly insufficient attention to rebuttal of some of the fringe theories, I do not believe any of them are fatal or justify a WP:TNT type approach. Whatever problems exist, fall under the heading of WP:SOFIXIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's just drawing POV-pushers who are making loony edits. Most of the things listed will be forgotten in a month anyway. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It's WP:SYNTH. It's a WP:LIST 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 WP:BLP 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look at the sources, virtually all of them specifically address these as conspiracy theories; we haven't assigned that moniker to these and then just strung them together. So, no, it's not SYNTH. For instance, this Politico article titled " The 5 Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theories of 2016" etc. LavaBaron (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's say 5 sources publish articles with titles like "Top 10 Models of 2016", with 8 of the names the same across all 5 articles. That wouldn't justify us having a "Top 10 Models of 2016" article.  E Eng  04:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? LavaBaron (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh.  E Eng  05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? I think the synth in question is the taking of 5 different X's, from 5 different sources, and combining that into List of X's. (I had absurdly hoped that we would actually have an article called "List of X's", but nope. It's a redlink. Sigh.) Each X might be sourced independently, but that means there are no sources talking about the List of X's, except Wikipedia. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no idea what you just said. Each example listed here has been positively identified as a "conspiracy theory" by multiple RS. LavaBaron (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, how to explain this... Synthesis of information is a very nuanced subject. What he's saying is (I believe) that we lack sources discussing the phenomenon of conspiracy theories in respect to this election. We also lack sources discussing the combined aspects of those conspiracy theories that have popped up in this election. No-one is suggesting that calling them conspiracy theories itself is synth, but rather that having an article about them as a whole is. Now, this particular problem has an easy solution: make an article about each conspiracy theory. That wouldn't be synth. But having an article about all of them as a phenomenon (which is what this article is) requires us to analyze them as a whole, rather than reporting what RSs say about them. Do you get what I mean? MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete "Conspiracy theories are a subject academic study, and the 1964 source used in the article, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," is a classic article by Richard Hofstadter. In order to identify conspiracy theories one needs expert sources, not Wikipedia editors or journalists who overuse the term.  Most of these theories are better referred to as unfounded rumors.  Also, to write an article about conspiracy theories in the election, one would need to establish that it is a notable topic, not that any particular theory was notable.  Such a source would explain why these theories are conspiracy theories rather than just label them.  TFD (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, so how about renaming the page to "Unfounded rumors in the US presidential election, 2016"? — JFG talk 11:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Way to early to speculate whether "vast right wing conspiracies" are conspiracies or a tactic to dismiss issues. Either way, the article is disparaging to many living people and skewed to whoever the last editor is.  Regardless, discussing things like Hillary's health when multiple doctors have weighed in is a BLP violation to disparage their opinion as a conspiracy theory regardless of whether it is Clinton's doctor or a  news medical expert.  Too much marginalizing language makes it a massive POV and BLP violation.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs work, but is reliably sourced and notable. A good structure for an article that deserves to be on Wikipedia. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete regrettably, because a lot of work has gone into this and it will be useful in the future. A concrete analogy is needed to show why this is synthesis. President of the US is a good analogy I believe. The article President of the United States is about the role, function and history of the office of President. List of US Presidents provides us with a list and brief summary of each person to have filled the role. The individual bios give a detailed examination of each president. This article tries to do all three, the drawback being there is no role or history to talk about yet. So it provides a list of conspiracy theories plus goes into detail about each one.
 * Looking at our present article, I am sure that after the election there will be academic discussion about what role these theories had in affecting the outcome of the election. The theories about the winner will live on; some will believe Clinton cheated if she wins, or others will continue to question Trump's ties with Putin if he wins. Ultimately, the truly relevant and notable theories will have their own articles, a list of them may be necessary depending on their number, plus an article under the current title will exist to discuss the effect these theories did or did not have. But until the dust has settled, this article in its current state is synthesising too many things under one umbrella. Move it to user space for now, because I'm certain it will be useful in the not too distant future. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 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.