Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinion is divided (with a slight lead for delete) between the view that this is a POV fork of Clinton Foundation and the view that it is an independently notable subtopic. There are defensible arguments (as well as many low-effort "votes") on both sides, such that I can't determine based on policy who is "right".  Sandstein  19:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is a WP:POVFORK from the Clinton Foundation, not a notable topic on its own, and is an unsalvageable WP:COATRACK in its current form; also presents BLP concerns. — Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. This is no different from Hillary Clinton email controversy in the sense of being a perfectly valid article subject.  The argument seems to be that it is a POV fork of the Clinton Foundation article but this controversy would overwhelm that article, just as it would overwhelm the article about the United States Department of State.  There are separate articles about many Clinton scandals, though Wikipedia editors have decided that any list of them is verboten, so it's no surprise when they would try to delete articles about the scandals themselves.  Good luck with that.  Maybe we should delete Watergate scandal too, as a POV fork of Presidency of Richard Nixon?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the extent of coverage between this and the email "controversy" is tremendous. It's mountain vs. molehill. Most of this article consists of POV laden WP:SYNTHESIS. The only sources really are a single AP story and then several stories slamming that AP story. And yes, the purpose of this article is solely to circumvent consensus on the Clinton Foundation article. The POV is obvious and obnoxious. As is the WP:GAMEing. This is also a cynical attempt to do a run around discretionary sanctions on American Politics articles. The creator of this article - and you as well - know from experience that adding garbage content to an existing article can be challenged, and then it is up to the person wishing to add it to get consensus for inclusion. It's painfully obvious that most of the content of this thing would not get such consensus. So you guys went and created a separate article for all the junk you know you wouldn't be able to get into the legitimate article. This is disruptive behavior, clear and simple, and it's actually fairly stunning in its cynicism and disrespect for Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The email controversy is a molehill compared to Watergate (so far), and this thing is a molehill compared to the email controversy (so far), but if a molehill is big enough and covered in reliable mainstream sources enough then it's appropriate for it to become the subject of one of Wikipedia's millions of articles (take a look at them, there's an article for every moth and every subway stop and every athlete who ever kicked a soccer ball).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "controversy" perhaps merits a mention - a few sentences - in the main article on the Clinton Foundation but it does not warrant its own article. Indeed, a good chunk of the content of this article consists exactly of material that was removed from the Clinton Foundation article on BLP and POV grounds... which is of course why C.Fredkin created this article (with your help) - because including that content in the original article would require firm consensus which he knew he couldn't get.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And oh yeah, articles on "moths" generally aren't subject to BLP policy. Hate to point out the obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As an example, using the exact same logic, and the same kind of process, someone could create an article on, say, List of white supremacists supporting Donald Trump or White supremacist support for Donald Trump. There's plenty of sources: Wall St Journal, ABC News, MSNBC,, Politico, VF, , WaPo, and a ton more. And all of these are reliable sources (well, I'm not 100% sure about the Alaska Dispatch News one). Would you vote to keep those articles? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How about if we let other editors get a word in edgewise?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing is stopping anyone from commenting below. Now stop deflecting and please answer the question. Would you vote to keep those articles? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't deflecting, just exercising my right to not read. But since you insist, no I would have no objection to an article titled White supremacists to whom Donald Trump has sold access and favors.  Assuming there are any.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you would vote "keep" for an article on White supremacist support for Donald Trump? (and your POV pushing is sort of showing through with that snark (not deflecting? You just deflected again. Come on man. You know people can read your comments right?) WP:AGENDA appears to fit)Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Too many leading questions. We two have said enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a question which illustrates a valid point. If the article of this AfD is legitimate then so is an article on White supremacist support for Donald Trump. Your continual evasiveness and refusal to actually answer the question sort of evidences the fact that you know this but don't want to state it out loud.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Communist Party USA has endorsed Clinton even in the primaries. Should we write an article about that?  TFD (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Except it didn't. Anyway, if you got a dozen reliable sources on the topic then maybe... as long as we can also write the White supremacist support for Donald Trump article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See the party's website, "America needs a landslide against Trump." Their electoral strategy is to not field a candidate, but to get their members and supporters to support Clinton.  It is covered in U.S. News and other mainstream media.  And no I do not think there should be an article, just wondering whether you did.  TFD (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a very weak argument. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The Foundation has attracted controversy during the current U.S. presidential campaign because of allegations that donors to the Foundation were given special access to the State Department when Clinton was Secretary. While the information could be merged into the main Foundation article, it would be undue emphasis, due to the size of the information.  In its own article, we can balance criticism of the actions of Secretary Clinton and her staff and the Foundation with well sourced defenses, according to the weight provided in reliable sources.  So there are no point of view issues, the topic is sourced and critically it meets notability.  TFD (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable; notability is validated not merely by the amount of news coverage, but by the caliber of that coverage, articles like Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and the promises she made about it, explained, Washington Post, and From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer, The Atlantic (scroll down to Clinton Foundation.  That said, we can consider what is the best title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page combines negative information about living person that suppose to be on page Clinton Foundation. Hence this is a POV fork of this section already present on page "Clinton Foundation" and possibly also an "attack page". And it has been created as a POV fork. According to one of users, "The article is ... an absurdly simple solution to all the whitewashing happening on the main Clinton Foundation page". My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Here is main problem with describing this controversy on this page. It creates false impression that Clinton is profiting from the organization, instead of doing charity work ("allegations that government access was traded for money"). However, in fact 80-90 percent of the expenditures by Foundation go toward charitable programs. Hence the POV and a possible attack page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to comment briefly about that. There are over 30,000 of those emails that have been made public, and they discuss an immense variety of subjects; I don't think one should delete all Wikipedia articles about those subjects merely because they're mentioned in the emails.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously have that backwards. It should be "I don't think one should create all Wikipedia articles about those subjects merely because they're mentioned in the emails"
 * And MVBW's link clearly shows, in case there was any doubt, that the creation of this article was a WP:POINTy bad faithed way to circumvent the presence of discretionary sanctions on the main article. Like I said, you're being played and I'm sure couple of the editors responsible are laughing their asses off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:POVFORK. It's not clear why this unproven allegation would need an article of its own. This sort of trash is often created during election season, and may be safely deleted. Anything useful can be put into Clinton Foundation, although editors will have to look really hard to find such. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:POVFORK says:  "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view."  So far, the editors claiming that this is a POVFORK of Clinton Foundation have been unable to provide evidence of a disagreement there that supposedly resulted in this article.  I'll also note that the sources for this article are impeccable.CFredkin (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)CFredkin (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is that word "generally" in there. They could also arise when some editors KNOW that their preferred POV content won't be included in the main article so they go off and create their WP:OWN version. Which is exactly what happened here. WP:POVFORK also says "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article" which is exactly the case here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, there were disagreements on main page about it, as documented here, but instead of resolving disagreements by consensus, editors created this fork page - as acknowledged here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see references to the content in this article in the link provided to the Clinton Foundation Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's not "original research"; it's all over the newspapers. Also regarding, "unpublished synthesis", do we need to cite specific pages from Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash? In any case, it seems pretty clear to me that the article should be kept and improved. Wikipedia is a work in progress...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. "Clinton Cash". A fringe far right conspiracy theory book. That pretty much exemplifies what kind of article we're talking about here (in fact, this article is pretty much based on that book except pains have been taken to make it look legit. Anyone familiar with the book can see right away that "Clinton Cash" served as a template).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the research from the book has been republished by the mainstream media. So, it may be inconvenient, but WP:UNCENSORED. Regarding your use of the phrase "conspiracy theory", I am not too sure; if it is published research, we as Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to remain neutral and not pass judgements on sources we don't like. The book was published by HarperCollins apparently, a perfectly respectable publisher. Are there reliable third-party sources suggesting this is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy? If so, you could add this content to the article to expand it, not try to delete it.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the issue is highly controversial and it must be described, but it has been already described on a number of pages, one of them is "Clinton Cash". Perhaps it should be described in even more detail, but this should be done in appropriate subsections of main page about the Foundation, and such subsections already exist and describe the controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The book was partisan and contained some errors which were corrected. But it is not conspiracist and was published by a reputable publisher.  It is not in the same league as Citizen United's Hillary: The Movie.  TFD (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We now have more than 130 pages about Hillary including pages within sub-categories . Is not that excessive? My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Doubtless some of them are excessive, but they need to be considered on an individual basis, and also it would be interesting to know the total number of pages for other living people; is her number the highest? In any event, the many legitimate pages for this BLP subject could be more easily navigated with the help of lists (like this).  And let's not forget: the number 130 is very tiny compared to the number of pages about her in reliable sources (which undoubtedly number in the millions).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. This page looks like a stub for Criticism of Hillary Clinton. Is anyone who does same thing for Donald Trump? I am thinking what kind of "fun" that might be. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That was actually made into an article/list, if memory serves me correctly. But good sense prevailed, and it was roundly deleted. —Melbourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 04:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, obviously crossing the threshold of WP:N. It certainly needs to be cleaned up, but it is preferable to fix it than delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable subject widely covered by reliable sources. I agree with a cleanup and title change. DoubleCross (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to what? Corruption accusations of Hillary Clinton? That is what this page actually about. Or maybe this should be page Corruption accusations during US presidential elections, 2016, - see this article? There are plenty of sources about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the current title is factual. There is a controversy between the USDS and the William J. Clinton Foundation. If we use the word "back-and-forth" instead of "controversy", it will sound POV (as Clinton denies it).Zigzig20s (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, let's make search for the current title in Google news: . It produces exactly one source. Yes, the conjecture between Clinton Foundation and State Department was made in certain sources and therefore not an "original research". However, the way it was presented here is POV, the title of the page is inherently POV (it was created to make a conjecture implicitly accusing a living person), and it duplicate content already present in other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Clinton"+"pay for play" gets 12,600 hits. Would you prefer that title?  TFD (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am only saying that current title is inherently POV. It is constructed to disparage a living person. This is not OK for encyclopedia. Several voters to "keep" suggested to change the title - apparently for that very reason (see above). This might be a good idea, but they did not explain how exactly the title should be changed, and I do not see a reasonable solution. Frankly, I think that WP should not promote propaganda about perceived, rather than actual corruption. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears to be a campaign controversy. The article does not mention the word "corruption", by the way. (I just did a word search.) Wikipedia is only relaying factual information from reliable third-party sources in this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this WP page does not tell "corruption" because there was no any actual (proven) corruption. However, it implies corruption, as more explicitly discussed in publications ("Why Hillary Clinton’s perceived corruption seems to echo louder than Donald Trump’s actual corruption"). This page implies a crime that did not actually happen. But once again, I think this can be noted as something published, but only on appropriate page and in appropriate context, i.e. on the page about the Foundation. This is POV fork. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - classic WP:POVFORK created to do a run around discretionary sanctions restrictions as they apply to the main article on the Clinton Foundation. Consists mostly of material that did not/would not be acceptable on the other article. Hopelessly POV. Stuff like this and comments such as these suggest pretty clearly that this is a product of a political POV WP:AGENDA at work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - This has had significant coverage in the news (e.g. ,,,,). Certainly enough that it deserves either substantial coverage at Clinton Foundation (though some editors insist they will try to remove material there at all costs, not helping their case), or its own article. If ideology is helping to generate support for "keep," it seems even more powerfully to motivate support for "delete." Significant coverage in reliable sources wins in my view. -Darouet (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of reliable sources. Article is good and informative. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it doesn't violate WP:POVFORK then. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete a Trumped up welter of SYNTH, failed V, OR, and BLP smears. I understand that certain partisans may use the word "controversy" to validate the various conspiracy theories and ruminations brewed by their favorite media pundits, but this article fails the basic sourcing policies of WP. Scrape together a series of tenuous or half-accurate "facts" and then caption it "controversy" -- this is not what we do on WP.   SPECIFICO  talk  22:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork, not notable enough for its own article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVFORK. --Proud User (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVFORK, WP:PROFRINGE, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Detailed spinoff articles are a core concept of wikipedia. This controversy has been covered by many many top tier sources for an extended period of time. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Except WP:spinoff didn't apply to the Clinton Foundation article in the first place, and still doesn't. Also, there was no consensus for a WP:spinoff because it wasn't ever discussed anywhere - except maybe here - after this "controversy" article was created. Apparently there was disagreeable "whitewashing" going on over at the Clinton Foundation article - so this article is somehow "...an absurdly simple solution to all the whitewashing happening on the main Clinton Foundation page". I would like to propose another ironically simple solution - editing in agreement with our core content policies such as  NPOV, V, NOR, CONSENSUS, and BLP. Also, I noticed "whitewashing" was used well before the creation of this new page, during Clinton Foundation talk page discussions, along with other POV descriptors of a similar vein. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's not a question of notability. WP:GNG 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 WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't need to cover all of them separately irrespective of WP:WEIGHT/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 WP:NOPAGE and WP:POVFORK. 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; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – WP:POVFORK; Odd, that we have a whole article devoted to an alleged controversial relationship between the Clinton Foundation and State Department — yet, neither the Clinton Foundation or State Department articles mention any of these allegations or problems. I will also note, that such alleged controversy has not resulted in anything of substance: firings, investigations, etc. and so I don't see this passing WP:10YT – hell, I doubt this will be notable in a year's time, considering the substance (or lack thereof) present in this article. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 07:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per users Anythingyouwant, The Wordsmith, and TFD. A stand-alone article is the perfect venue for the complexity of topic. The analogy-argument by user Volunteer Marek re Supremists supporting Trump is bogus; the two elements have no comparable connection. The 'biased title' assertion and other arguments by user My very best wishes are baseless and screechy. IHTS (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be great if the "topic" was actually complex (it isn't). These are simply allegations of impropriety without any actual substance. You can cover that in a paragraph in at Clinton Foundation. It doesn't need a WP:POVFORK of its own, just so it can act as a shit magnet for every ludicrous claim the right can think up. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One could create a lot of similar pages based on coverage during the election campaign. Consider something like Islamophobia of Donald Trump (the sources: ,,), this story about Trump, this story about Trump, this story, etc. Each of these subjects has received significant press coverage. Should they be mentioned on general pages related to the election campaign? Yes. Should we create separate pages about each of them? No, because these are not long-lasting encyclopedic subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are all opinion pieces and hence not reliable sources. If however you could find numerous reliable secondary sources covering the opinion that Trump was Isamophobic, you could write an article, just as you could write an article about the Clinton campaign's appeal to xenophobia in 2008.  We actually have an article about the Southern strategy, while was an appeal to racism by the Republican Party.  The determining factor is not our personal political views, but whether or not reliable secondary sources establish notability.  TFD (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , this appeal to reliable sources is a bit specious, since Trump's incorrect statements about Muslims have been widely discredited by reliable sources, and thus Donald Trump's lies about Muslims in the United States, for instance, is perfectly legit and easily sourced. BTW, finding "reliable secondary sources covering the opinion that Trump was Islamophobic" means we can write that article? No, that tortured sentence would mean we can write an article called Opinions claiming that Trump is Islamophobic or something like that. Neither of these two articles, both of which are easily sources, are acceptable for Wikipedia. And that goes for this one as well. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep: Per Darouet. The topic is covered by notable sources, but the article needs to be cleaned up. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article is chiefly about allegations of impropriety without any actual substance. Fringe elements on the right making allegations and some RS investigating those allegations (and finding nothing of note, see the AP story for the classic example) doesn't merit its own article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A mishmash of political attacks, legitimate criticism, and selective quotation of sources, all cooked up for the pretty clear purpose of circumventing any attempt to build consensus at the main article, Clinton Foundation = a classic WP:POVFORK. Neutralitytalk 13:33, 14 September 2016‎ (URC)
 * Relisting comment: An absolutely enlightening debate... Re-listing for clearer consensus Lourdes 16:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * keep - not a fork, but a split per Summary style: a clearly defined subtopic with sufficient content and coverage to justify splitting into a separate article. To avoid WP:FORKing, follow the Summary style guidelines. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This can scarcely be said to be a "clearly defined subtopic." In fact, it's a mishmash of largely unrelated attacks and criticisms. Neutralitytalk 18:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, it clearly violates the section of the article on Summary Style on POV forks, because of the way it was written. It's irretrievably bad, basically. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How? See my comments below.  TFD (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment A few editors have voted to delete by citing "WP:POVFORK." That is not an argument, unless an explanation is provided why it violates POVFORK, which no one has done.  Certainly forks are allowed and even some POVFORKs are allowed.  No one has explained what makes this a POVFORK or an unacceptable POVFORK.  A POVFORK is an article about the same subject that gives different weight to the content.  "Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy" is not a competing version of "Clinton Foundation" that provides a different narrative, but is solely concerned with one aspect of the foundation, viz, the "controversy."  There are numerous examples of similar articles.  The "Watergate Scandal" for example, while it may be a fork of the "Watergate Hotel" or the "Nixon Administration" is not a POVFORK, because it does not provide an alternative narrative of the Watergate Hotel or the Nixon Administration.  TFD (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement that there is an actual controversy is already POV. Sources on the right claim there is a controversy, sources in the middle and on the left mostly deny this. In other words, the very title is problematic. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are saying that there is a controversy over whether there is a controversy. I think you mean that only the Right questions the Foundation.  If that is true, it is not a reason to delete the article, but something that should be added to it.  Incidentally that is true of most political controversies from Watergate to the Monica Lewinsky affair.  One side will make allegations that the other denies.  TFD (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, regretfully . It's a valid spinoff from either the foundation or campaign articles, and including all the back-and-forth in either article would give undue weight to the subject. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On further review, I made the wrong call above. It's too much of a mishmash as it stands, and the information about the alleged pay-to-play wouldn't be overbearing in the main article. Delete per SYNTH, as others have stated.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete total WP:POVFORK, many others have explained the fork above, I agree with those arguments. Rockypedia (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Strong. Put the relevant information in the respective articles about the C Foundation and H Clinton. (Wikipedians should create a rule and NOT allow writing articles about current events). (I have a wiki account (not active in the last year) and I have edited with my different dynamic IP in the last 2 months. I'm saying this because I don't know if there are crteria about commenting/voting here.) --151.47.207.137 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That talking heads discuss it, and that the press discusses the talking heads discussing it, does not notability make. Scjessey said it pretty good, "That would be great if the "topic" was actually complex (it isn't). These are simply allegations of impropriety without any actual substance. You can cover that in a paragraph in at Clinton Foundation." Delete as essentially POV. It seems to me that there is a great desire to populate Category:Controversies related to Hillary Clinton. One wishes some editors would pay fair and balanced attention to Category:Controversies related to Donald Trump, but that category didn't even exist until recently. How strange. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Drmies, I think you'll find that there are a lot more non-controversy-related articles at Wikipedia about Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, because much more has been written about her over the years, and because she has been a political figure a lot longer. So having more controversy-related stuff about Clinton is not anomalous.  I tried to spruce up this article some more today.  When people like Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, and the editorial board of the New York Times all say that this controversy involved ethical problems (if not legal ones), then I hardly think you can pin this one on the vast right-wing conspiracy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Clinton category dates only from last year, same time Trump started running. As for the rest, I disagree with you. Again, not everything that the NYT spends an article on is worthy of its own article. I simply do not see why this can't be captured in the main article, with the amount of space determined by the number and availability of the sources. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The amount of space required by the available sources would take up too much room in the main article about the Clinton Foundation, and so would give the matter undue weight in that article. I would be glad to get rid of the Hillary Clinton controversy category, if we can instead have a list format which would be more appropriate and useful (I've been suggesting such a list for many years).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete largely per arguments from Neutrality, MelbourneStar, Drmies, and others. The article is a mishmash of loosely related information assembled in a way that strains to legitimize the existence of a grand controversy based on allegations of malfeasance. It seems that the article was created after a two-week-long culling of material from the Clinton Foundation article, which strongly suggests that this was created as a WP:POVFORK. The existence of sources is a necessary, but insufficient, criteria for an article to exist. The subject should also be covered as a cohesive subject in multiple reliable sources. A Google news search for Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy suggests that that's not the case.- MrX 00:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep seems like an obvious keep given the significant coverage of the controversy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mercy!! We don't even have an RS reference cited that states there is a "controversy" concerning the relationship of the Foundation to the State Dept. It is 100% SYNTH.SPECIFICO (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

UTC)
 * That's precisely what's at stake here--whether there is such significant coverage beyond the usual news on today's controversy, manufactured or not. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete POV Fork as aptly demonstrated by u|MrX (Ivote above) with this link The foundation for this article appears to be the Clinton Foundation article. Also, it is a collection of information to support the conjecture that there is a Clinton Foundation - State Department Controversy leading to supposed misconduct and malfeasance - which has never been shown to occur. This is also backed by - there is no such topic that is covered in reliable sources. For example, a  search with this topic  generates the following results: "Fact-checking the Clinton Foundation controversy | PolitiFact";  "From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Primer on Bill and Hillary Clinton (The Atlantic)";  "US election: Why is Clinton's foundation so controversial? - BBC News"; "State Department approved 2015 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial";  "Clinton faces late summer scandal wave - POLITICO";  and so on. This indicates the topic is WP:Synthesis and contravenes NPOV because a leap has to occur to make it from any of these reliable sources to this topic. There is no there, there. No RS indicates this topic exists. Also, "controversy" is a WP: weasel word in that it is vague, is an opinion (POV), and gives the impression the topic is authoritatively communicating something specific and meaningful "when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment (as nominator). As of my nomination this article 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 WP:SPINOUT, 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 WP:COATRACK 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. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI nomination assumes supporting deletion, so a second bolded !vote from the nominator is taken as a duplicate. Suggesting you unbold or change to 'comment'. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 22:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. That just goes to show you how rusty I am at deletion nominations :) - Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV Fork. Brianga (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointless short rationale.BabbaQ (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * how about you explain how this is not a POV fork? your pointless response might carry some weight then. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 14:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete because: (1) the article reads a lot like finger-pointing, much like a blog (not like Wikipedia, which is what this site is called); (2) this is a coatrack which is used to further support an argument that such a controversy exists, but again, this is not a blog or a research paper; (3) it's not notable on its own, so merge all the content back to the Clinton Foundation article. By the way, I'm not voting for either Clinton or Trump, not that it matters, but you can't really say I'm biased. epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per EM Gregory, there is plenty here for an article even if it is negative about Hillary. 🔯 Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.