Deletion of Donofrio v. Wells

Comment: The conspiracy theory surrounding Obama's natural-born citizenship status has gotten enough coverage in reliable source to make the conspiracy theory notable enough to be included in its own article in a manner similar to how 9/11 conspiracy theories and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories is treated. This particular lawsuit may not be large enough to warrant its own stand-alone article, but it has been covered in numerous reliable sources and is verifiable enough to include on Wikipedia. I see a number of people tossing  out as a reason as to why this article should be deleted, but the usage of  for this purpose is contradicted by the guideline itself. According to , conspiracy theories are not to be given undue weight, but may be included in articles as long as they are verifiable via reliable sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: or (less preferable) '''Delete'''. This case did attract a certain amount of media attention, although virtually no one in the mainstream media took it seriously; but I'm sympathetic to the  arguments that in six months' time, it will have been forgotten entirely. As the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, I don't think there's a strong argument for keeping this as a separate article; but it would be appropriate, I believe, as part of a larger article on rumours/conspiracy theories about Obama (or even as part of his article, though there would be definite  issues there). That would probably be the best way of handling this, preferable to outright deletion
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP)

Comment: Wikipedia is |not news
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Instead of just outright keeping an article on this one case, why not roll it into another article?  I have a feeling that while this case might probably be closed tomorrow with the supreme court rejecting it, we are not going to hear the last of this.  This most likely will morph into some type of theory that various web blogs and such will keep alive like any other conspiracy theory.  My thinking is that instead of having an article on it's own, why not create a much larger article covering the theories just like we have for all the JFK conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, and so on.  That way if someone wants to know about this case they will see it listed on the same page as a variety of other cases.  Then if this case becomes so notable to outlast the recent attention it is getting now, then an article should be written then.  This case/issue still falls under the  policy and the only reason the article was created in the first case was due to the fact it was not included any where else.  So lets give this case a home where it should be included instead of being it's own article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: per , , . Embarrassment to Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:FORK)

Comment: Star Trek|It's dead. Dead Parrot|Bereft of life, let it rest in peace. Unless the petitioner is going to claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen because of a Caesarean section, its fifteen minutes of fame are finished. Not only is it Beyond the Fringe, there is no purpose for giving this absurdity |undue weight. Special:Contributions/147.70.242.54|147.70.242.54
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: the article is a POV fork to start with (not to mention violating  and ). The article is a running political commentary dressed up in the form of a . South Park|Move away, there's nothing to see here. The assertion (unsupported by |reliable sources) of a person "spending ... millions of dollars" to prevent the State of Hawaii from releasing his birth records (which, under Hawaii state law, are '''public records''') does not add anything credible to this discussion in terms of Wikipedia policy and editorial guidelines. Again, the court case is dead - the same should be true of the tempest in a teapot that some people are trying to push as a "valid" article despite Wikipedia policies stated above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:RS)

Comment: Well, this AfD will still be open on Monday unless it |snowballs
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)