Deletion of CNN 2017 undercover videos controversy

Comment: The article is about a video created by a person known for creating heavily edited videos to purposely mislead. Even if that weren’t true, what’s the importance? Some possible grumbling by staff?  I also think there are |BLP issues with including secretly recorded quotes that were likely taken out of context
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:BLP)

Comment: to James O'Keefe or Project Veritas. Having a separate article gives undue weight for the topic. 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOVVIEW)

Comment: I, like others have before me in this discussion, emphasize that this AfD is not premature. Mainspace content must meet mainspace policies from the moment they are created or moved to article space. The key policies here being  and . If someone wants to experiment with content that does not presently meet these criteria, it should be done in Draft or User space. –&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N)

Comment: primarily per .  Part of the page is promotional for O'Keefe's work, the rest is biased against him. There's no suitable redirect target for this term; I'm not opposed to moving any content to James O'Keefe or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: given that O'Keefe has " O’Keefe has previously spliced videos together to imply its subjects were saying things they were not." http://time.com/4536212/james-okeefe-project-veritas-video-democrats/, this whole article as written is one big BLP vio (regarding Bonifield) as it's basically used to spread unverifiable attacks on a living person. The notability is unlikely to last, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)