Deletion of John Edwards paternity allegations

Comment: Should this AfD be closed per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: per |undue weight at this time. A paragraph or two would suffice at this point, sourced from the ''reliable'' sources used to construct this article (ie, not the blogs or the National Enquirer).  Should this actually significantly impact (ie, end) Edwards' political career, then yes, at that point you could justify spinning it back off into an article a la the Lewinsky scandal
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: This may look like beating a dead horse, but since  issues are important here, and because I think it's possible that a closing admin or DRV might ignore this consensus, I want to answer some possible objections. I haven't seen most of these explicitly stated, but I think it's implicit in some comments:  insists on good sourcing, particularly for extraordinary claims (which applies to this situation), so it might be objected that ''The National Enquirer'' (NE) is just not a reliable source, and therefore the article violates , and that this concern outweighs the benefits of having an article that discusses media coverage and even the historical significance of how this impinges on John Edwards' political influence and career (obviously an important subject). As  states, application of any policy, including  and , needs to be treated with common sense. Only a consensus that violates core policies can be overturned by a closing admin or by deletion review, and it would be improper to overturn a consensus that reasonably treats and applies those policies in a commonsense way (whether or not the closing admin or DRV ultimately agree with the consensus, they only have to recognize it as reasonable). Reasons why  and  (and ) are not violated, and instead are treated with common-sense in this case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:POL||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: Besides being the subject of multiple secondary sources, the primary criteria of , signs are emerging from reliable sources on the implications of the allegations on the Democratic party. http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1167499.html
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: I'm hard pressed to find a policy that doesn't favor deletion here... , , , , ... take your pick.  It's all be covered ''ad infinitum'' above.  / USER:Blaxthos|Blaxthos
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:COATRACK||WP:UNDUE||WP:BLP||WP:NOT)

Comment: Trying to circumvent  by the expedient of claiming to document the "allegations" is just bias by the backdoor. A sentence or two in John Edwards is the most that would be appropriate; the concept of undue weight still applies when a topic is spun out to a separate article - It's why we don't have George Bush incompetence allegations or Allegations that Barack Obama is unfit to be president
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: although at this point, when the allegation itself has shaky sourcing to the National Enquirer (and only sourcing of part of the allegation to Fox News), the focus should be on the overall media coverage, with the allegation as background (and therefore worth giving fewer details per ). But the shape of the article is not an AfD decision: AfD is about whether there is a subject we can know is worth an article. There is just no way that the subject of the tortured, complex media coverage of this allegation is not a worthwhile subject for this encyclopedia. I'm not just talking about the NE and Fox coverage, but even the coverage of decisions by news organizations not to cover the allegations. There are plenty of sources that have discussed these decisions. Note the long section on media coverage at John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008. That section is encyclopedicly useful to readers interested in the media coverage of this issue. Above (timestamp 19:29), User:Livitup used the "Donna Rice affair" section of the Gary Hart article to see how we cover that. He found information worth considering in thinking about the media coverage here. In other words, Livitup used the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia and that editor could do so because we covered the subject as an encyclopedia of our size should. This is what we do
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)