Those conspicacy theories always make me roll my eyes. If a character it's struggling, logic says is not because someone has putting them aside because some fear for other character, or because someone in a high place dislikes them. I have a hard time believing that because every character is an asset to the company they're owned by, and damaging them voluntary is damaging a possible future income, because you never know what will work for the readers next week or month or year.
If a character is struggling, I think it's usually because editorial either doesn't know what they want to do with them, or the concept they chose for them doesn't grab interest between the readers, or the artistic team isn't doing a good enough work "selling" it. Or there isn't just enough interest in that character at the time. They're tied to tendences, like everything else; people gain and loose interest in certain stories with the passing of time. This works for every fictional story. I like Blue Bettle, for example (I'm not a fan, but I like both Jaime and Ted), and I know that I don't have a new booke because probably there isn't enough interest in the audience and maybe because there isn't a creative team with an idea that the bosses like for them. Or the Green Arrow cast as a whole, a big one fanbase with even a Life Action and everything: I bet it's not only that Bendis benched their book because his Leviathan stuff. By now, that ended and there's still no book in the near future. Nope. I think they just put the whole cast to rest for a while, and see if, much like tsome cuotivated land would, it gains some new momentum with a bit of passed time, some new interest. And maybe a new idea.to work with that they like. Or maybe they're just waiting for 5G to release a book with Connor as GA IDK.