Deletion of Racial views of Joe Biden

Comment: Not only per  and  (as no reliable source seems to suggest that Biden's racial views are notable), but also because this is a shoddily-sourced violation of  and : this article only contains criticism of Biden's positions on race issues. It does not even pretend to paint a full picture
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SIGCOV||WP:NPOV||WP:BLP)

Comment: Per  and . I moved this into mainspace a few days ago as the request had no opposing comments after 5 days. I somewhat regret this as it is clear the article was poor and unfinished. However, I think the users have shown that there ''are'' a decent number of sources to write about. However, in its current form, the article seems unjustifiable other than to talk about a few minor comments. Plus there is already unhelpful edit warring on the page. But I think if we find consensus and get some more references then this could be a viable article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per nom - classic , synthesis of sources that are not treated as a set
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: I have added content and additional sources to the article. It still needs improvement, but considering how many references there are (including those that I have not added, but are listed here)  should not even be a concern. Please consider the article as a 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:HEY)

Comment: absolutely a case of . Sources have been |specifically augmented to make a |point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WHATABOUT||WP:SYNTH||WP:POINT)

Comment: as a  and |synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I was against such an article for Trump originally. But, eventually there was so much material it was clearly significant. If after a half century of public service, this is all that can be found for this article, we have clear POV pushing.  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Fails  "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Everything is taken out of context to portray Biden as a racist. By Wikipedia standards this is an attack page.  (1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment; (2) Opinion pieces. This reads like a Trump campaign list of Tweeting points
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOTADVOCACY)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per nomination. The rationale for creating the page appears to be 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: per the many good arguments which cite  and the rampant whataboutism that is being used to try and justify the article's existence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: It is an encyclopedic topic and the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/joe-biden-black-breakfast-club.html piece on the "you ain't black" gaffe recognized Biden's efforts to win over black voters as a key matter. Though this could probably be named better if it was "racial policies of Joe Biden" or something which would make it clear that it isn't just about personal views, but his past and current policies. The WSJ just published an article called https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-offers-big-government-plan-to-address-racial-inequality-11594648806 Biden Offers Big Government Plan to Address Racial Inequality. So, I would personally adjust the scope a bit but let it be a  of Political positions of Joe Biden because racial positions are a major and a decisive matter in the elections and the current article is a good start
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SUBARTICLE)

Comment: Agree with the hypothesis. Flirts with 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCACY)

Comment: If it's  for the main article, it's undue for a separate article, making it a textbook .  Also applying are  and  (it's not a prominent aspect of the BLP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:POVFORK||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Certainly Biden has talked about race over the years and has supported legislation and executive action that have affected people of different races. But in order to meet |notability, we would need a body of reliable sources that discuss Biden's racial views, not just articles about these incidents. Despite the name of the article, it doesn't explain what Biden's racial views are. It merely lists a number of incidents and invites (or leads) readers to draw their own conclusions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: lots of  and  in that article as elements of a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:SYNTH||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Disruptive  and  violation. Also some obnoxious whataboutism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:POINT)