Deletion of 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks

Comment: Jtrainor (unclear how this is a  as it addresses all candidates, also such articles usually need editing and not deletion), Southern Texas (NPOV concerns can be addressed by editing), Biruitorul (#PAPER and see Jtrainor), Steve Dufour (no policy-based argument), Fallenfromthesky (
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:NOT||WP:PERNOM)

Comment: this polemical |coatrack. Our coverage of this inane election already dwarfs that given to truly historic ones like 1860, 1932 and 1980; there's no need to keep yet another fork on the latest hot air to come out of this circus
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: As predicted, (and as always happens with articles of this nature) it has simply become a |coatrack for critics of the three current candidates and a POV fork for them to add opinions that they might have been prevented from adding to the candidate articles.  The fact that there is POV against all three candidates is not "balance" it is simply an example of an article with excessive POV.  Consider this, if the article were only about one candidate, not all three, would it be acceptable?  Would we allow an article that was simply a list of attacks against a living person?  Unlikely.  So why would it be acceptable to combine three such articles into one?  Further, it is apparent that most of this article has nothing to do with the election.  A number of the "criticisms and attacks" such as the Keating Five scandal, Whitewater, Cattle Futures, etc. have not even been mentioned in this campaign and the cites are from a decade ago or earlier. And why is there no mention of any of the other candidates who are no longer in the race?  It's because nobody is gunning for those candidates anymore, further evidence that this is simply an attack forum for political opponents rather than an encyclopedic article on the 2008 election (are we going to drop Clinton or Obama from this article when one of them emerges as the primary victor?) This article cannot be salvaged since the very idea of it is flawed.  It should be deleted immediately
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: This election is already historical, based on the candidates (First legitimate female candidate, a candidate who would be the oldest ever elected, and the first strong African-American candidate).  The controversies around the campaigns are noteworthy in themselves.   aside, in regard to the future interest in this election, this article is worth keeping
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)