Deletion of US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy

Comment: Article violates  and . Sources were used to support |POV and their selection is at least in part unencyclopedic and may be sign of bias of original editor. I don't think it is possible to base good article on this and as it seems there are no reliable sources for potential rewrite. Therefore I think it should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOR||WP:POV)

Comment: per nom.  Sources fail  and the article as written is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position '''Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position''', and will never be anything than pure conjecture, as NO RELIABLE SOURCE has ever made this connection.  So there.  Chew on it.  Spoken in my best Executive Branch voice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 1) Wikipedia is not censored, so if you people are saying to delete because its offensive (and you're a Democrat) then thats a damn shame. 2) The article subject matter is legitimate, as legitimate as the allegations that US and UK developed the coup against Mohammad Mossadegh - and yet that article states it as fact (in reality they only provided support for the plot, which was entirely of Iranian conception and operation)! 3) If this article is deleted, '''then by God delete Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and all other such allegations articles so that there is NO hypocrisy or  here'''. Otherwise this article must be '''kept
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: per Travb and Khodavand. Article is sourced and sources meet the criteria of  and . As Khodavand writes, calling the sources listed as "far-right" or "extremist" is itself POV. We're not talking about white supremacist sources or the John Birch Society or anything like that which would obviously not such criteria. Whether or not anyone agrees with the sources is moot - the fact remains that such allegations against the Democratic Party do exist and go back to the JFK administration (when there were accusations of Democrats being "soft on Communism".) Similar accusations (though in a slightly different vein) have been leveled at the Republican Party, such as the relationship between the Bush dynasty and the Saudi royal family. These are actual allegations - they exist. You cannot ignore them due to your ideological or partisan bent and to delete this material would be stripping Wikipedia readers of valuable information that is difficult to find elsewhere. Khodavand makes a wonderful point in suggesting that all relevant POVs be included in the article. This proves to me that the article was started in a |good faith move. Again, deleting or ignoring sources is not the answer. Rather, the answer is to include opposing viewpoints to balance such articles. This is the way it's always been done on Wikipedia, and when adhered to, things always remain neat and copacetic. Capesh? metaspheres
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:AGF)