Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton controversies
per Anythingyouwant, and:I see nothing wrong with a list of controversies, provided it conforms to policy including NPOV (assertions that NPOV precludes the article's mere existence are very subjective interpretations of NPOV, in my view). It's hardly inherently an attack on the individual, considering that no high-level politician has been without an abundance of controversy. Lincoln and Kennedy had their shares of controversies, and they both paid for them with their lives. To the extent individual controversies have been pure unadulterated politically-motivated bullshit, the list of them makes Clinton's attackers look worse than her; such is the nature of politics. The "insidious text" argument above is completely without merit. If the text is insidious, we fix it, we don't delete the article.Any perceived motive on the part of the article's creators is irrelevant to this question, not to mention being unprovable. In any case, there is no policy that says good content must be erased because of POV motive on the part of its creators; this is one of many "rules" many editors have invented without demonstrated community consensus. It amazes me how many very experienced editors fail to grasp the full meaning of , or choose to ignore it. It ain't about being nice in a discussion.I give our readers, at least the readers of articles related to politics, credit for knowing the difference between controversy and guilt. &#8213
— User:Mandruss, 18:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:AGF (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)