Deletion of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (2nd nomination)

Comment: What is "GNG", and what page did you intend by your redlink to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BETTERHERETHANTHERE)

Comment: These "theories" are notable. While individual ones may not be notable, the coverage they've gotten as a whole more than meets notability standards.  I'm feeling a little bit of |snow in the air
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)

Comment: The subject is obviously a moot point as the Supreme Court Chief Justice has sworn him in, but the subject of the article is notable and the debate about his citizenship did actually happen, people did question it and others did call it a conspiracy (Fox News comes to mind as providing coverage of it in Europe). I'd even go so far as to say this was a  keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: I don't think the relevant issues have materially changed since the last AfD.  Even leaving aside the basic rule that |Notability is not temporary, the fringe still hangs out there. Maintaining this separate article remains by far the best way to deal with the subject on Wikipedia.  Even if the issue isn't getting continuing play in the media, this article performs a genuine public service for Wikipedia to maintain an unbiased article carefully itemizing the allegations and their refutations, and it provides a place to redirect (and then delete where appropriate) material that would otherwise keep mucking up other Obama articles. Delete this and we have to spend a ton of energy keeping this sludge out of other articles for the next 8 years or more.  Not to mention, it is really a pretty good article, all things considered given the difficulties inherent in its subject matter.  I don't think it's overly long (but if it is, the answer is to compact some of the details, not to delete it) nor do I find it to be "pandering to the tinfoilers"; instead it provides an encyclopedic and authoritative treatment of a bizarre but real phenomenon
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: I don't think keeping an article on this nonsense is in any way an endorsement of the baloney. Per , the article should clearly mark that the people believing the nonsense are a small minority. But the coverage is intense enough to set up an article. The Obama campaign considered such nonsense attacks serious enough to set up the Fightthesmears website to debunk them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)