Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy
As of my nomination this articlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clinton_Foundation%E2%80%93State_Department_controversy&oldid=737958901 was a textbook POV fork: a hodgepodge of weakly sourced negative claims about the Foundation, created by a small group of editors who had been unable to shoehorn the material into either the Foundation article or the Clinton campaign article. My various attempts to attach POV and RS tags were repeatedly reverted, so I thought it best to just delete the article for being untenable as-is, and unlikely to improve. Since then I've been sitting back rather than offering my !vote, watching as a number of good arguments have come in for keeping the article, and some very solid efforts on all sides to improve it and get rid of any POV. It's not a bad article at all now, and this is far from a slam dunk case, but on balance I don't think this article stands on its own as a legitimate , i.e. a POV fork without the POV. If you look at the article, very little of it is about what the article purports to be about, namely the existence, scope, history, and nature of a controversy about the intersection between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. Rather, it is a catalog of various well-sourced things about the Foundation that also have to do with Clinton or the State Department, together with some aspersions that there is something wrong about the intersection. What we don't have in the article, and what isn't there in any way with ongoing sources, is an indication that these various events are the subject of any major or ongoing controversy. As such, the article is a relatively empty intersection of the two subjects, with a tendency towards being a  by listing a bunch of things that could be taken as negative. So, all in all, most of the content is either something significant enough that it would belong in the foundation article or some other sub-article if editors there saw fit to include them, or else very minor trivial stuff that does not pass weight concerns
— User:Wikidemon, 22:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SPINOUT||WP:COATRACK (Wikipedia:Article size)