Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy
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
— User:Rhododendrites, 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:WEIGHT||WP:NOPAGE||WP:POVFORK (Wikipedia:Notability)