Deletion of List of Hillary Clinton controversies

Comment: this is an obvious , and consists almost entirely of . We have :Category:Hillary Clinton controversies, and that should suffice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:SYN)

Comment: as obvious . Creator should be beaten soundly with a |trout and told that Wikipedia is not a right wing blog
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:TROUT)

Comment: As I said in the Alleged Clinton Controversies AfD, this is pretty much an obnoxious  that doesn't belong here in any form. The insidious text in each entry basically is beyond the pale of  or civility. Hiding it under 'list of' rather than 'alleged' makes it no better at all in my eyes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:NEUTRAL)

Comment: Violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: as noted above, lists of this kind are just s for negative BLP info and magnets for POV pushing. We should not have these kinds of lists for any politicians, from whatever side of political spectrum, no matter how tempting a target they present. For the record, if somebody tries to create a list of Donald Trump controversies, I'll vote to delete that one too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: per ,  and  the set of "HRC controversies" is notable and has been discussed in numerous reliable sources, as well as sourcing for each individual controversy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:LSC||WP:CSC)

Comment: per Anythingyouwant, and:I see nothing wrong with a list of controversies, provided it conforms to policy including NPOV (assertions that NPOV precludes the article's mere existence are very subjective interpretations of NPOV, in my view). It's hardly inherently an attack on the individual, considering that no high-level politician has been without an abundance of controversy. Lincoln and Kennedy had their shares of controversies, and they both paid for them with their lives. To the extent individual controversies have been pure unadulterated politically-motivated bullshit, the list of them makes Clinton's attackers look worse than her; such is the nature of politics. The "insidious text" argument above is completely without merit. If the text is insidious, we fix it, we don't delete the article.Any perceived motive on the part of the article's creators is irrelevant to this question, not to mention being unprovable. In any case, there is no policy that says good content must be erased because of POV motive on the part of its creators; this is one of many "rules" many editors have invented without demonstrated community consensus. It amazes me how many very experienced editors fail to grasp the full meaning of , or choose to ignore it. It ain't about being nice in a discussion.I give our readers, at least the readers of articles related to politics, credit for knowing the difference between controversy and guilt. &#8213
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: Various  theories, most of them fully debunked, an attempt to smear a figure who is controversial to some, and a big BLP fail. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: per ; sourced, notable, and too expansive for merge into extant WPBIO
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: I think, at the very least, this listing is an example of  – it's completely one-sided, the listing is only negative and hence the definition of a |coatrack. I will also note that this listing sounds awfully like an |attack page: non-neutral, and considering when it was created (during an impending presidential campaign) I regrettably believe that its purpose may have been to disparage the subject. Now, the creator may continue to wp:bludgeon|bludgeon their point that "there are similar articles on x, y, or z" – but I'm actually referring to ''this'' article and ''this'' subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:CHERRY||WP:COATRACK||WP:ATP)

Comment: per . No clear inclusion criteria. Almost any political position in the United States will be "controversial," for example. The list is a mishmash: some of the entries involve actual investigations; some involve criticism of perceived "gaffes" in the media, and still others are run-of-the-mill political criticism or smears (the "accent" and "adopting last name" bits are particularly silly, and the inclusion of one author's speculation that Clinton and Vince Foster had some sort of romantic relationship is not a "controversy," only an unverified and irresponsible assertion by one author). I also agree with others that have pointed out that it raises BLP concerns for a list entry to give an  allegation of misconduct on the part of an individual without also noting that the individual was subsequently cleared
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per .  Obviously the articles listed must be able to stand on their own merits
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)