Deletion of Fred Thompson controversies

Comment: There are several  who want criticism of Thompson removed. People should keep their eye on it: {{vandal|Dtoler}}, {{vandal|Eseymour}}, and {{vandal|Sbowers3
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: most of these are not real "controversies", they are things that are, how shall I put it, “anonymously controversial”, as in an editor (or more likely a blogger) says “lookie here”, and puts it under controversies. For example, are his relationships controversial, and if so, according to whom? For most of the entries on the article, there are only primary sources indicating facts, and no secondary sources indicating the controversial nature of the facts, and as such violate . The same with Aristide, no one has labeled his relationship with him as “controversial”. Sam with the PAC money transfer. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies has been around for quite some time, but it is currently proposed for dismantling.  There are reasonable arguments both for and against the existence of these articles; I wish the WP Powers That Be would decide on this for all politician articles, rather than each one's editors having to hash it out independently.  For a long time I was a proponent of seperate controversies articles, but aside from whether they violate ontent forking and the like, there are a some practical problems with controversies articles:  they are hard to summarize fairly in the main article; a surprisingly high number of readers fail to find them, thus concluding that the main article is a "whitewash"; and they tend to accumulate a lot of minor unto trivial entries, because they aren't competing for space as they would be in the main article.  Of course the great benefit of them is that you can drill down into detail on the important entries, without disrupting the overall narrative of the main article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: Clearly, this article violates NPOV, but there does seem to be a precedent for "controversy" or "criticism" pages relating to politicians. If this article is edited to conform to NPOV and notability standards, then it would seem to me to be legitimate. That said, there's also the issue of otability|otability. Some of these controversies may indeed be notable in the long run, while others are either not notable or may become entirely irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)