Deletion of Sam Blacketer controversy

Comment: If (as is suggested on the article's talk page), wikipedia logs are allowable providing that use of the data does not infringe , ie is not analyzed nor interpreted but merely included as examples of the actual editing reported previously in nominally reliable sources, then surely we can't call for deletion on the grounds that the article's sources have been shown to be unreliable and hence has no reliable sources to satisfy notability and verifiability, as others have suggested here? Paradox
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: here's the hitch, the newspaper sources were rubbish, in the current version we're sourcing Wikipedia diffs to rebut them (navel-gazing or what? What on earth does  have to say?). NB I am not !voting like this in order to "preserve Wikipedia's reputation" - the current article is probably the only place on the internet you can get the real story and see that much of what the news media are said is junk! So please stop telling me that I'm part of some great cover-up conspiracy. Skomorokh is bang on the banana
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)