Deletion of Donald Trump email controversy

Comment: or merge with Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The criterion for including something in Wikipedia is its coverage in . The entry lists 21 , which is enough to establish . Most of the calls for deletion do not state a valid Wikipedia policy or guideline. Many simply disagree with the judgment of the multiple . Many seem to be motivated by a partisan support for Trump
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:RS)

Comment: sniffs like a Red herring mudball thrown out in the last week of election.  Doesn't seem to have gotten enough  of coverage to be worth an article, and the piece it's from or status as a 2016 'controversy' seems to lack .   Seems to be just a rant about 1973 bundled with one about a casino 2005 lawsuit mentioned.  That was re-mentioned in the summer and went nowhere, now this repackaged and rerun under a new label.   Really, it's just a tiny ranting, not covered in major outlets or important enough for an article -- certainly nothing on scale of debate mentioned or getting headlines.  The guy wrote a little rant piece because there's a market for such and made a little sale, ignore it and move on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT||WP:N)

Comment: to Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Definitely notable, with significant, in-depth coverage from multiple , but not enough for a separate article. If further allegations come to light, and the section gets too big, it can always be split off later
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per ,  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: First of all, this could easily be confused with the Clinton email scandal|Clinton email controversy, a significant issue right now.  Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are presidential candidates; perhaps if somebody sees the article in question, they would confuse it with the one on Clinton's email controversy, or just assume that Trump had done the same thing, or nearly the same thing, as Clinton.  In fact, they are completely different issues.  In assuming good faith, I will not assume that this article was published with the sole purpose of responding to the Clinton email scandal, which has recently been revived by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, however, I do believe that it may be serving such a purpose, whether intentionally or not.  If the legality of the actions described in the article was disputed, I would propose that the article in question be merged with the Legal affairs of Donald Trump article.  However, an article by USA Today states that this is not the case.  Because the actions described in this article were not illegal, I do not see its relevance.  Further, many news articles cited in the article simply published their articles as a response to the Clinton email scandal, whether or not the article itself was intended in this way.  '''This seems to me, therefore, as against otnews|Wikipedia's no news guideline'''.  The article is about an issue which seems to have little significance, other than to cancel out the Clinton email scandal and convince people not to base their vote on the email scandal.  That, to me, seems to conflict with what Wikipedia is, and this article will likely become irrelevant after Election Day (United States)|Election Day in the United States of America.  Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, with non-biased, purely factual information on a wide variety of subjects; this article does not comply with that, being relevant only to ensure that Hillary Clinton does not lose support over the ongoing email scandal
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per . I've never even heard of this controversy before until now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per ,  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:Boomerang|Boomerang, {{u|Bozzio}} - |Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.  If something is |verifiable and covered by multiple |reliable sources, we don't |censor it just because |you don't like it. The article is perfectly valid for inclusion in WP, per numerous policies, though of course it can benefit from expansion. Censorship of Trump articles seems to be an ongoing thing with his supporters (just now restored a working reference someone had deleted from the article). Apparently we can't even include his upcoming court hearing for rape of a minor because someone wants to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#RfC:_Jane_Doe_content discuss it first, even though the hearing and allegations have widespread coverage! (Question for the proposer on the subject of bias - is s/he trying to keep out the latest FBI investigation of Clinton emails from ''that'' article, even though those allegations '"coincidentally" sprung up in the week before the election' too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: into Legal affairs of Donald Trump. This strikes me as an unnecessary and non-neutral content fork. The Legal affairs article isn't too long and can easily accommodate this content, which appears designed as a |pointy response to Hillary Clinton email controversy and in contrast doesn't have much of a life of its own
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: into Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The controversy is unlikely to grow large enough to warrant its own article, and as others have noticed, the current title seems to be a |deliberate mirroring of the Hillary Clinton email controversy
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: actually, is this even a valid AfD? "Massive BLP concerns"... aren't listed. "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not ()" don't apply either - the subject could hardly be more notable right now, the content is verifiable and reliably sourced, and nothing in  seems to apply. So really this comes down to "|I don't like it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)