Deletion of Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (2nd nomination)

Comment: per Wasted Time R's reasoning above. Also this is really a bad article which is put together of bits and pieces without an assertion that the central theme is notable. It also has problems with eutral point of view being written by people who were mainly interested in influencing the election (I say with some danger of getting into trouble with ssume good faith but also with confidence that I am correct
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:A)

Comment: I'll concede the deletion attempt; it's clear others are seeing this differently than I do, and I didn't make my case very well.  But renaming it to explicitly be a controversies list would be a mistake.  Contrary to what JJB says, during 2008 we did ''not'' shunt controversies out of BLPs and into separate articles.  In fact we did exactly the ''reverse'':  we tore down all the "Controversies of Person X" articles and sections and merged the non-trivial material back into the BLPs and campaign articles in the proper chronological places.  See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages to see for yourself.  The reason for this is that controversies lists are a bad idea as they are invariably devoid of context, devoid of analysis, and devoid of indications of importance.  ''If this article under consideration is to have any value, it needs to add those things'', and thus live up to its current title.  In particular, it needs to demonstrate that Romney lost 10% of the vote due to being Mormon, as claimed above.  It needs to demonstrate that Obama annoyed 30% of the electorate due to Jeremiah Wright, as claimed above.  It needs to state whether the Coe association cost Hillary anything (led to her 11 straight defeats in February 2008, dooming her in the delegate count?), whether the Placa association harmed Giuliani (that wait-till-Florida strategy would have worked out fine if it hadn't been for this?), and whether the McCain associations are why he couldn't catch Obama in the general.  It needs to state whether the lack of criticism during the campaign of Huckabee's association with the son of the father who once wrote a book and who knew Gerald Ford and Jack Kemp decades ago (jeez, how many s can there be? did any of you actually read the Huckabee entry? all from one, count it one, opinion source in the Huffington Post? you really think this is legitimate?) caused voters to go back in time and not vote for him. Most importantly, it needs to demonstrate that religion was a major theme of the election, as claimed above.   Because as the article looks right now, there's no clue as to what effect any of these controversies had.  There's no discussion of the positive effects of religion had on the campaigns of Huckabee and Obama, to name two.  It's just a list of random controverso-factoids from the campaign, loosely clumped together because they all involve religion or religious figures.  It's really poor history
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)