Deletion of Artificial controversy

Comment: The entire article flunks .  Once the  violations are scrubbed, nothing is left.  Perhaps an entirely different article can be written that complies with Wikipedia policy, but I haven't seen anyone make a case for it.  Where's the reliable source that systematically describes and defines artificial controversy qua artifical controversy?  There isn't one cited in the article as it currently stands, and  a dictionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:NOR||WP:NOT)

Comment: the top part is a dicdef for a and the bottom part is a textbook example of : three examples of an allegedly notable phenomenon, cherry-picked from the political scene of a single country, supported only by sources which discuss the specific examples given, and not sources which discuss the actual phenomenon as a whole
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: After several days discussion, those w supporting on the article have shown themselves totally unwilling to remove the  of examples, or even provide NPOV references to them. Nor does it adequately discuss that calling things an AC is used as a way to sidetrack good arguments as well as bad--there is one sentence only saying that, and i wrote it. I conclude that the purpose of the article is possibly those very examples. this is not just a possible place for POV to accumulate--this is a place where POV will accumulate and has already. I'm not going to try to figure out which one or ones might be the point of it. An article on the subject is possible, but not based on this one. If kept, of course, I'll try to bring it to NPOV as best I can
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)