Deletion of Clinton donors in the Panama Papers

Comment: ridiculous POV fork and a big  violation. Voting "Keep" in the hope that this can be made neutral in some way is pipe dreamin'. There's also no sources which actually cover this as a topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Holy |COATRACK, |POVFORK with a dash of |BLP violation batman! Can't really say anything additional that has not already been said above. So per nom
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:POVFORK||WP:BLP)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: this |POVFORK, |COATRACK |BLP violation per nom
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP)

Comment: per nom and per AusLondonder: this is a classic  article, and may also be a  violation as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP)

Comment: WP:POVFORK,  and . Also seems to be somewhat 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX||WP:COATRACK||WP:OR)

Comment: salt, and trouts to our admins and to oversight who should have been onto this in minutes, not days.  This is patently a partisan attack page.  |COATRACK, |POVFORK
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: I was tempted to snow-close this as 'delete', but I concluded there are enough reasonable 'keep' !votes to preclude a snowstorm. So instead I will just say that I hope this gets deleted as soon as the seven days are up. I can't improve on what Bearcat said: ''"No comparable article of this type exists for ''any'' other political figure who is only tangentially connected to the Panama Papers, which suggests that this is very clearly a misplaced |original research attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton by |synthesizing sources to tar and feather her with guilt by association."'' I would add that there is virtually no INDEPENDENT reliable sourcing to support the thesis of some kind of notable association between Clinton and the Panama Papers. Most of the sources do not even draw that conclusion - they are about the individuals - and the few that do make a connection are clearly POV editorializing, not neutral news reporting. Note, too, that the article doesn't even attempt to disguise its POV; the section headings are a dead giveaway. And instead of a normal lead summarizing the article, the first paragraph is a collection of quotes from her - which I guess the rest of the article is then supposed to disprove or something? I agree with Volunteer Marek that the article cannot be improved; it is a BLP violation on its face, and only deletion will fix it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per nom ''et al.'' (especially {{U|Clarityfiend}}) as a COATRACK and POVFORK, wrapped into a game of ''Six degrees of Friends of Hillary''. Also, this is a clear case of . Just because Prince (singer) wore a purple suit, it does not mean that ''purple suit'' is a notable thing. Nor would the fact that Barack Obama once lived around the corner from me, or that 93rd Street (Manhattan) has an article, make 94th Street (Manhattan) notable. At best, by trying to link this, that, and yonder source into a single article, it is little more than  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: as per Bearcat and nom. This is a very clear  and possible , and I think that any material on the whole matter should be dealt with in context of each donor's own article and perhaps Clinton's, but a whole article on this alone gives me pause for thought. It's not really a BLP violation ''per se'', but there's a strong implication of guilt by association, as Bearcat correctly noted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: for the reasons Elinruby and Nergaal have given. This article is important as it is unique from the Panama Papers article, and hence the content cannot be moved there. Including this content on the main PP article would be |undue weight (and in many parts not particularly |relevant), yet there seems to be |consensus on Talk:Panama Papers to mention the Clinton Foundation's relation to the PP for the reasons given by Elinruby above; the fact that individuals have not been mentioned personally hasn't stopped Vladimir Putin and David Cameron being mentioned in the article {{small|(although I personally think Cameron's section should be moved, but that's for another discussion...)}} Therefore, the creation of this article seems necessary, and it should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:IRRELEVANT||WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: Obvious |POVFORK. Let's not waste any mote time on this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)