Deletion of Solyndra loan controversy

Comment: as a notable controversy, but '''remove''' all content contributed by sockpuppets of Grundle2600. That may not leave much of an article left, in which case merging may start to look more attractive, but I think there is a reasonable case for having an article on this subject for the time being. It's had enough contributions from other editors that it's not a straightforward  candidate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G5)

Comment: Tempted to call for a |Speedy G5 as a Grundle2600 shtick here but too much time has probably passed to get that to swing.  This is what we have to deal with time and time again in this subject area; that something ''happened'' (there was a loan to Solyndra) is fact, that that fact is a ''controversy'' is what is debatable here.  Criticisms of a fact don't always add up to a full-blown controversy per se; this is the political arena where anythings politician does is going to be automatically hated by slightly less than half of the electorate.  I think to justify a full article or an entry at a politician-related page (e.g. Dan Rather memos or Bill Ayers stuff), a "controversy" has to reported as exactly that, and not just be a composite of "well, some people criticized it" news stories
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:SD)

Comment: and merge anything sourced properly back into Solyndra per  (no pov-forks) and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:DENY)

Comment: I've just done a bunch of this, removing weasel words, putting in commentary from Obama and Chu, removing duplicated information, and reducing the prominence of jobs created, and reducing the previously excessive emphasis on unproven allegations of cronyism.  The references to the article make notability obvious: among others, I see ABC, the AP, the Atlantic, Business Week, CBS, HuffPo, Media Matters, MSNBC, NBC, NYT, Reason, Reuters, and WaPo.  I agree that eny should be a concern here, so much of the Grundle material should be rewritten.  I've done some of that and tried to move the article towards NPOV.  In light of the subject matter, this is going to be a critical article, much as the Niger Uranium Forgeries article is heavily critical of Bush
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D)

Comment: per ,  and . Agree with Loonymonkey and Wikidemon. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solyndra_loan_controversy#POV_tag_remains_necessary_for_article_created_by_and_largely_written_by_sockpuppets_of_banned_User:Grundle2600 noted on the article's talk page, the article was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solyndra_loan_controversy&diff=451236474 created by and largely written by sockpuppets of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Grundle2600 banned
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:NPOV||WP:DENY)