Deletion of Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy

Comment: It's not a question of notability.  doesn't automatically mean something should have a stand-alone article. There are hundreds of individual aspects of individual campaigns, incidents involving individual candidates, etc. that, taken on their own, could be viewed as notable. But we don't have to take them on their own. Wikipedia is  and doesn't need to cover all of them separately irrespective of /relative significance to the larger topic of which they are a part. There's certainly more than enough coverage to mention this in the article about the Clinton campaign, perhaps the Clinton Foundation article, perhaps others, but the existence of sources about an aspect of those subjects that happens to be visible in the current news cycle doesn't necessitate a new article. It's really just about  and . I don't contend that there's coverage -- but what's certainly not established is lasting significance outside the campaign/candidacy. I would support deleting the lot of stand-alone "controversy", "conspiracy", etc. articles that have no life outside of 2016 election/campaign/candidacy coverage until after the election, when we can see what has lasting significance. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:WEIGHT||WP:NOPAGE||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: total , many others have explained the fork above, I agree with those arguments
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: The Foundation has attracted controversy during the current U.S. presidential campaign because of allegations that donors to the Foundation were given special access to the State Department when Clinton was Secretary.  While the information could be merged into the main Foundation article, it would be undue emphasis, due to the size of the information.  In its own article, we can balance criticism of the actions of Secretary Clinton and her staff and the Foundation with well sourced defenses, according to the weight provided in reliable sources.  So there are no point of view issues, the topic is sourced and critically it meets |notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: not''' a ''fork'', but a ''split'' per Wikipedia:Summary style: a clearly defined subtopic with sufficient content and  coverage to justify splitting into a separate article. To avoid ing, follow the Wikipedia:Summary style guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK)

Comment: largely per arguments from Neutrality, MelbourneStar, Drmies, and others. The article is |a mishmash of loosely related information assembled in a way that strains to legitimize the existence of a grand controversy based on allegations of malfeasance. It seems that the article was created after https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clinton_Foundation&type=revision&diff=736467771&oldid=734407380 a two-week-long culling of material from the Clinton Foundation article, which strongly suggests that this was created as a . The existence of sources is a necessary, but insufficient, criteria for an article to exist. The subject should also be covered as a cohesive subject in multiple reliable sources. A Google news search for Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy suggests that that's not the case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: WP:POVFORK; Odd, that we have a whole article devoted to an alleged controversial relationship between the Clinton Foundation and United States Department of State|State Department — yet, neither the Clinton Foundation or State Department articles mention any of these allegations or problems. I will also note, that such alleged controversy has not resulted in anything of substance: firings, investigations, etc. and so I don't see this passing  – hell, I doubt this will be notable in a year's time, considering the substance (or lack thereof) present in this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT)

Comment: As of my nomination this articlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clinton_Foundation%E2%80%93State_Department_controversy&oldid=737958901 was a textbook POV fork: a hodgepodge of weakly sourced negative claims about the Foundation, created by a small group of editors who had been unable to shoehorn the material into either the Foundation article or the Clinton campaign article. My various attempts to attach POV and RS tags were repeatedly reverted, so I thought it best to just delete the article for being untenable as-is, and unlikely to improve. Since then I've been sitting back rather than offering my !vote, watching as a number of good arguments have come in for keeping the article, and some very solid efforts on all sides to improve it and get rid of any POV. It's not a bad article at all now, and this is far from a slam dunk case, but on balance I don't think this article stands on its own as a legitimate , i.e. a POV fork without the POV. If you look at the article, very little of it is about what the article purports to be about, namely the existence, scope, history, and nature of a controversy about the intersection between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. Rather, it is a catalog of various well-sourced things about the Foundation that also have to do with Clinton or the State Department, together with some aspersions that there is something wrong about the intersection. What we don't have in the article, and what isn't there in any way with ongoing sources, is an indication that these various events are the subject of any major or ongoing controversy. As such, the article is a relatively empty intersection of the two subjects, with a tendency towards being a  by listing a bunch of things that could be taken as negative. So, all in all, most of the content is either something significant enough that it would belong in the foundation article or some other sub-article if editors there saw fit to include them, or else very minor trivial stuff that does not pass weight concerns
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: as . It's not clear why this unproven allegation would need an article of its own. This sort of trash is often created during election season, and may be safely deleted. Anything useful can be put into Clinton Foundation, although editors will have to look really hard to find such
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: A few editors have voted to delete by citing "."  That is not an argument, unless an explanation is provided why it violates POVFORK, which no one has done.  Certainly forks are allowed and even some POVFORKs are allowed.  No one has explained what makes this a POVFORK or an unacceptable POVFORK.  A POVFORK is an article about the same subject that gives different weight to the content.  "Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy" is not a competing version of "Clinton Foundation" that provides a different narrative, but is solely concerned with one aspect of the foundation, ''viz'', the "controversy."  There are numerous examples of similar articles.  The "Watergate Scandal" for example, while it may be a fork of the "Watergate Hotel" or the "Nixon Administration" is not a POVFORK, because it does not provide an alternative narrative of the Watergate Hotel or the Nixon Administration
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)