Deletion of Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (3rd nomination)

Comment: for the same reasons as before. This nomination offers no new policy-based reason for deletion. This is a notable topic, not because politicians lie, but because ''this'' politician has transcended the previous norms in such a way that the very approach of blatantly lying about basically everything has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Many politicians will lie about their achievements or their plans or their motives but before Trump, none have constantly tried to claim that people should believe him over their own eyes (e.g. with the size of his inauguration crowd). {{u| Iamreallygoodatcheckers }} probably missed the part of  which explicitly says {{xt||When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject.}} Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK||WP:NEGATIVESPIN)

Comment: SoWhy succinctly explained how this article does not violate 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK)

Comment: An  page is a page written specifically to denounce a subject. This article may be a magnet for POV issues, but you cannot deny that the reliable sources have covered Trump's lies and other inaccuracies at length. He's in the middle of a dust up with Twitter over them fact-checking his tweets as we speak. POV issues should be dealt with on the article's talk page. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK)

Comment: The article is notable and well-sourced. Anyone is welcome to create a similar article for Biden or anyone else if they can show that it is notable. If you have  concerns then you should raise the specific issues on the talk page and try to build consensus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:FALSEBALANCE)

Comment: This is the expanded article for the already huge Donald Trump article's "False statements" section (that could potentially also be renamed).  There seems to be a misconception about  by the nominator.  The topic is also very notable, or it wouldn't be mentioned in the main article either
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK)