Deletion of Barack Obama media controversy

Comment: How is it a |POV fork or |coatrack if the article makes clear that the reports of him attending a madrassa etc. were incorrect? If there was no mention of the allegations being proven untrue, then I could see it being a POV fork or coatrack. :In this case as long as the facts are stuck to the situation is the conservative reverse of the Rathergate issue; reporting based on incomplete information that was revealed as such. There certainly was enough coverage to establish notability, including media like the NY Times discussing the poor quality of Insight's sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK||WP:COAT)

Comment: Disclosure: I've been a regular contributor to the article.) Per nom, this article has become a hopeless coatrack, including barely relevant content about Clinton supporters, speculation about the Clinton campaign and unnamed Republicans, past rivals of Barack in Illinois, and the production values of Katie Couric's video blog. The entire article presents |undue weight: Obama's detractors seek to link American prejudice against Islam to a self-described Christian candidate, and this article, if perhaps well-intentioned, only facilitates that dubious goal. Even use of the word ''madrassa'' in reference to the school carries a loaded political meaning.http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9324 I've previously argued for an article covering the controversy over journalism ethics and standards, but that topic might not be notable enough in and of itself, and currently the article's scope goes far beyond this anyway. Delete article, but maybe merge ''some'' content with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Insight (magazine), SDN Menteng 01, and possibly United_States_journalism_scandals#Obama.27s_schooling:_Fox_News_Channel.2C_CBS_News.2C_Washington_Post_.282007.29|United States journalism scandals, Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Criticism_of_individuals|Fox News Channel controversies, ''The Washington Post'', and other news outlets and personalities, but ''only if'' careful attention is paid to pertinence and proper weighting
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:undue weight)