Deletion of Trump–Russia dossier allegations

Comment: This is all well sourced, notable, and perfectly compliant with . We can not really judge if the allegations were "the truth" or very strongly substantiated.  We can only judge if the allegations were published in multiple secondary RS and belong to the subject of the page.  Hence this page should not be deleted. Should it be kept as a separate page or merged to Trump–Russia_dossier#Allegations? I think it should be kept separately simply because Trump–Russia dossier page is already large and and this page is also large and expected to grow because every individual allegation needs to be described as "disputed/admitted/denied/whatever" - as described in numerous RS on the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:PUBLICFIGURE)

Comment: Your candor is appreciated, MelanieN - different perspectives are what contribute to the quality articles this encyclopedia strives to present - but as the nominator of this AfD, I disagree with what you've presented. because, quite frankly, it's reductio ad absurdum. I nominated this article - now a list - because it is an ATTACKPAGE that initially got its legs (tines?) as a POVFORK for all the reasons mentioned throughout this AfD. I'll add the fact that BuzzFeed is considered an unreliable source, and in this case, the only source that published the full dossier - is that the source being used for this list of allegations? According to BuzzFeed#Notable_stories, they are now facing 2 litigations as a result. We should also keep in mind that other news orgs declined publishing the full dossier and criticized BuzzFeed for doing so. The New York Times confirmed https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/business/buzzfeed-donald-trump-russia.html in this artice that they chose to publish generalized descriptions instead. For WP to separate certain allegations from the main article and publish them as a list with commentary is well...fill in the blanks. Opposition research by its very nature is an attack on a political opponent, and attempts to justify its validity as encyclopedic for no other reason than news organizations published articles/opinions/analysis about it (noting that  is only reliable for statements of fact) is ludicrous at best. WP is not a political SOAPBOX from which to "resist" or spread rumors and conspiracy theories by anonymous sources. I stand by my decision as nominator
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:NEWSORG)

Comment: as per nom. , an attack article, and  violation. Article is extremely biased with one-sided commentary. We have an article on the dossier, that's enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:PUBLICFIGURE)

Comment: exceeds requirements for meeting GNG, WP:NRV, and WP:N due to the significant amount of attention this topic has received in reliable sources. It seems appropriate to have a standalone article along with the main article so both can be of a readable size per . This article "{{tq|...creates the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible}}" (per ) and solves the undue weight situation that would occur (per ). Also, the availability of so much reliable sourcing indicates NPOV, NOR, and BLP criteria are satisfied (including |WP:Public figure
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF||WP:PUBLICFIGURE)

Comment: per Atsme.  which violates  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:PUBLICFIGURE||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: as |POV fork. Where is the mention that the allegations are largely/mostly (depends on the source) unsubstantiated/unverified
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: as |POV fork. We don't have lists of things that are completely covered by a single article.  The only purpose for such an article is looser sourcing requirements.  That's not a valid reason for a list. Lists must span multiple articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)