Deletion of Alleged Clinton Controversies

Comment: add  to the numerous other policies and guidelines already mentioned
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SPECULATION)

Comment: per . The article is a  of several other articles and serves no apparent purpose other than to advance a point of view that the Clinton's are mired in controversy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSCANDAL||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: There was a project-wide attention given to U.S. presidential candidates in 2007, which viewed separate, catch-all "controversies" pages and sections as a violation of , ontent forking, and riticism.  All of these were gotten rid of, Democrat Republican or otherwise, by merging any such sourced material into the relevant biographical sections they belong in.  Look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 2#Status of "controversies" pages.  Since then the same has been done when needed for 2012 and 2016 presidential candidates.  This practice has made these articles better and this no time to be going backward.  Additionally this particular article is in violation of 's prohibition of guilt by association.  It assumes that the supposed sins of one Clinton should always be visited on the other.  And it's especially a BLP violation for other people mentioned – for example the whole paragraph and photo about Cheryl Mills  – what scandals is she accused of?  She's worked for the Clintons in several settings and she represented Bill during his impeachment trial.  Well, she's a lawyer and that's what lawyers do, they represent people in legal proceedings.  Professor JR's justification that this article is needed as a "research tool" is a novel theory but one that does not hold water; WP articles are researched from solid, mainstream published sources, not from each other
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:C||WP:C||WP:BLP)