Deletion of Berg v. Obama

Comment: The possible truth of the assertion in the claimant's submission is not relevant to the notability of this court case, and nor is your view, nor your mother's. Please keep your personal opinion of the candidate's trustworthiness to other venues. |Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: moved from above) The only reliable source (Washington Times) also says that Berg "has filed suits for clients against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, claiming they knew about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks before they happened." Those lawsuits are also not worthy of their own articles. See . ~&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: With the article obviously going nowhere, this page serves only as a magnet for loons of the same ilk as many above.  Close it out with  or something and get the matter over with
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: This article fails , but with better resources and a strong rewrite I would change my mind
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: This is highly known, in-the-news material that should be covoered (especially per .  Who would even consider deleting this article?  It should be expaned, as it's a very public case, and will obviously have people seeking information on it...HERE. On the grounds of this being "in the news right now", that does not mean it will be notable if the case is thrown out.  If something interesting happens with this case, then it would be more notable.  Oh, and I can't sign in because I'm at work, but this is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: per Nrswanson. (Not ignoring the debate about , but simply suggesting that this is, in fact, the correct course of action
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: I don't think it will be possible to write a truely |neutral article about this pending legal case on the basis of the limited coverage it has recieved as a #NEWS|news story
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOT)

Comment: I orignally said to keep, and I still think that it barely passes notability, however, the article seems to be a battleground for a |soapbox of people whose interests are not Wikipedia, and instead want to run Obama into the ground.  Maybe later, but at this time, I don't see how we can keep it and keep it neutral without constant reversions of links to website that are just anti-obama and not wp:links or wp:rs material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: per  perhaps notable enough for a balanced mention on a 2008 campaign article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Since anyone can bring such action against anyone, the fact that it involves a notable person doesn't confer notability.  Violates ; only notable if it succeeds.  On the 0.01% chance this case succeeds, it would become '''way''' notable, and can cetainly be recreated Hell freezes over|when that happens
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)