Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton controversies


 * 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 delete. Not surprisingly, there are strong opinions on both sides. Also not surprisingly, the arguments on both side cite a smorgasbord of policies. I don't see any egregiously weak arguments on the delete side, nor do I see any killer arguments on the keep side, so the overwhelming weight of numbers (roughly 4:1 in favor of delete) rules the day here.

The existing consensus of Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies and Alleged Clinton Controversies being deleted by wide margins also weighs somewhat on the side of deleting this (although less so with the first one, due to the large amount of time that has elapsed). The argument that this is a list and those weren't lists doesn't impress me very much; they're all fundamentally the same topic, just with a different packaging. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Hillary Clinton controversies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Articles that are lists of controversies about a person are an inherently bad idea. All notable controversial material should be, and with this subject already is, included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in the main biographical article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes) and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section has long been considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism, and is a red flag for BLP violations as well. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here — and the same was subsequently done for some other political figures' articles, including those running in the 2012 presidential election. I hope it was also done for those running in the 2016 election.

Specifically with respect to HRC, there used to be a "Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies" article, that was merged out in 2007 as per Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies. Then there was an "Alleged Clinton Controversies" article, which was created and snow deleted last year, see Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies.

This third go-around suffers from many of the same ills as its predecessors. It is a dumping ground for all kinds of things, lumping in the serious (e.g. Travelgate, emails) with the poorly sourced and lurid (Foster) with the frivolous (OMG, a politician's memoir was ghosted and lacks candor!). It is a toxic stew of slanted presentation (e.g. mentioning that someone was indicted without also mentioning they were acquited) and guilt by association (e.g., things that Bill did). It contains tautological criteria for inclusion (making "disputable public statements that attract media attention" is what politicians do – they say things in public that many people will disagree with). Most of these entries are dealt with appropriately in other articles, in the context in which they occurred, which is how it should be. Much as it has often frustrated editors and readers, WP is not meant to be a one-stop shop for reading all the bad things that have been said about someone. Accordingly, this article should be deleted. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete pages that are a coatrack for negative material about a living person are pretty much auto delete. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As I said in the Alleged Clinton Controversies AfD, this is pretty much an obnoxious WP:COATRACK that doesn't belong here in any form. The insidious text in each entry basically is beyond the pale of WP:NEUTRAL or civility. Hiding it under 'list of' rather than 'alleged' makes it no better at all in my eyes.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a useful navigational aid to the many many many Wikipedia articles about Hillary Clinton; the main BLP is completely chronological and does not offer any consolidated summary of this set of information, and this list also provides a useful and concise collection of historical information about her including a brief one-sentence description of each controversy.  For better or worse, lists of scandals and lists of controversies are common at Wikipedia.  See, for example, the lists described at Category:Lists of controversies.  This particular list of controversies supplements a longstanding category, namely Category:Hillary Clinton controversies. The latter category by itself is insufficient, because (like all categories about controversies) it is difficult to annotate with explanations, and also is not easy to wikilink to within article text.  There are hundreds of lists of controversies at Wikipedia, beginning with List of Wikipedia controversies.  Many of these lists deal with specific people.  See, for example, Controversies of Kirill I of Moscow.  It is very common for an article about a person to include a list of controversies that is not big enough for its own article, for example Alan Pardew, and if it is acceptable to have a section about controversies in a BLP (as innumerable BLPs have) then it is acceptable to have a separate article for them if the controversies become too numerous for a mere article section.  A list of controversies in the Clinton case is especially appropriate because the BLP on her is chronological with literally dozens of other articles spun out for each controversy, and no section in the main article is devoted to linking to those other pages.  So, the present list is useful as a navigation aid, in addition to the historical information it provides, including concise one-sentence summaries of each controversy.  Incidentally, I wrote the list.  P.S. This is not a "third go-around" as alleged, given that the first two "go-arounds" were not lists.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Catch-all "Controversies" sections within BLPs are also bad, for pretty much the same reasons. The 2007–2008 and 2012 efforts for presidential candidates merged all of those out too.  I'm not sure about 2016 – I merged one out for Martin O'Malley a year ago with this edit but after that my participation in WP became much less.  I'm sure there are examples like the Alan Pardew one but they are bad form; if I were working on that article the first thing I would do is merge the important items in that section into the mainline narrative and discard the unimportant ones.  And there is no requirement that there be any navigation aid to find out everything bad about a person.  People should just read the biographical article(s).  Then they'll find out the good, the bad, the in-between, the indifferent.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You also have an error of fact. Category:Hillary Clinton controversies is not a "longstanding category".  It was created only late last year, by a drive-by SPA editor, and only barely survived a CfD via a 'no consensus' decision (I was away from WP at the time, just seeing this now).  I don't think it should exist either.   Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive criticisms in your initial nomination above, which led me to make these improvements to the list. Thanks also for the correction about the error of fact, which I've struck through above.  I emphatically oppose deleting the category about her controversies, given how common such categories are, see, e.g. Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. This list will have no effect on the chronological nature of the main HRC BLP.  It will also have no effect upon the many articles that each focus on a particular HRC controversy.  It's just a list.  There's no requirement that such a list exist, but there's also no prohibition, and there's certainly lots of precedent.  Reagan administration scandals.  Political scandals during the George W. Bush Administration.  Political scandals during the Clinton Administration.  Et cetera, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, as noted above, lists of this kind are just WP:COATRACKs for negative BLP info and magnets for POV pushing. We should not have these kinds of lists for any politicians, from whatever side of political spectrum, no matter how tempting a target they present. For the record, if somebody tries to create a list of Donald Trump controversies, I'll vote to delete that one too. Nsk92 (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're advocating a special exception for Hillary Clinton. There are hundreds of articles and lists like this.  Reagan administration scandals.  Political scandals during the George W. Bush Administration.  Political scandals during the Clinton Administration.  Et cetera, ad infinitum.  And unlike the Hillary Clinton BLP, the Trump one already has sections devoted specifically to aggregating controversies, like "Allegations of business links to organized crime" and "Trump as plaintiff or defendant" and "Bankruptcies of four businesses".  The Hillary Clinton BLP does not aggregate anything, because it's purely chronological.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Administration is the keyword here. Those are fine because those have actually been a part of presidencies and other individuals and are well sourced. This is attacking an individual who has not been elected yet to the presidency. No special exemption is being sought; it's a WP:COATRACK with major BLP issues, plain and simple, and you just screened past Nsk's statement that no matter who this was about, they would vote delete.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "screened past" means, but Nsk mentioned Trump so I did too in reply. Every entry on the list wikilinks to a Wikipedia article that includes reliable sources.  People throw around the word "coatrack" whereas it means an article that "ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely".  The nominal subject here is Hillary Clinton controversies and I have yet to hear what the other subject is aside from the nominal one.  By the way, I've inserted footnotes for every item on the list, per comments above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Snow delete as obvious WP:COATRACK. Creator should be beaten soundly with a trout and told that Wikipedia is not a right wing blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COATRACK, what's the nominal subject, and what's the tangential subject? Do you realize that the Trump article, instead of being chronological like Clinton's, has sections devoted to Trump as plaintiff or defendant, alleged links to organized crime, and bankruptcies, respectively?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What has the Trump article got to do with this piece of garbage? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * People are saying this is garbage, but no one objects to the same sort of thing at the Trump article which I helped write.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, so what? What goes on at the Trump article has nothing whatsoever to do with what goes on in this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per that essay, "other stuff exists arguments can be valid or invalid". Merely citing the essay is not useful.  Just like citing WP:COATRACK is not useful without identifying what the nominal subject is, and what the tangential subject is.  And just like citing WP:CHERRY is not useful without identifying any items within scope that were not picked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Controversies should be included in the main Hillary Clinton page. I agree that this seems like POV pushing, and would not support the creation of these pages for any politician. Some of these are real controversies, which are discussed in-depth in their own articles and are linked to the main Hillary Clinton article. However, the inclusion of many of minor gaffes/controversies (Speech patterns? Adoption of Clinton last name? Really?) seem to give the impression that they are on the same level as Whitewater and the email scandal, just by being listed on the same page. Thus, the article creates the impression that there are more serious Clinton scandals than there actually are.


 * Additionally, the short summaries after every link seem very biased to me. If the page is kept, they will at minimum need re-writing for NPOV. For example, "Clinton took responsibility for security lapses but allegedly engaged in blame-shifting" is not at all a good summary of the Benghazi attack. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the Benghazi summary so it says "Clinton took responsibility for security lapses at consulate where fatalities occurred". Regarding accent, the summary says "adopted southern drawl when speaking to southern black audiences".  I think the racial component makes it more significant, but you're right that this has not received as much press as other things in the list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete — I think, at the very least, this listing is an example of WP:CHERRY – it's completely one-sided, the listing is only negative and hence the definition of a coatrack. I will also note that this listing sounds awfully like an attack page: non-neutral, and considering when it was created (during an impending presidential campaign) I regrettably believe that its purpose may have been to disparage the subject. Now, the creator may continue to bludgeon their point that "there are similar articles on x, y, or z" – but I'm actually referring to this article and this subject. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 15:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Without bludgeoning anything, I would like to deny that the purpose was to disparage the subject. The purpose was to list a bunch of Wikipedia articles that address controversies in which the subject was involved.  And that purpose was accomplished, no more, no less.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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 WP:AGF, 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; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Anythingyouwant, and:
 * Actually, it is provable that my motives are neutral here, even though it shouldn't have to be proven. I created the article Legal affairs of Donald Trump, which is chock full of controversy just like this list is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, who cares? What matters is this article. There's absolutely no legitimate reason to have a list of controversies, particularly as almost all of them are right wing bullshit. I would argue, in fact, that it is a BLP violation as well as a COATRACK (per MelbourneStar's rationale). Please stop pretending this is for the good of the project. It's clearly designed to disparage the subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you really think it's a COATRACK, then why won't you say what the tangential subject is that differs from the nominal subject? Have you ever actually read WP:COATRACK?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * right wing bullshit shows who is allowing their bias to influence their editing judgment. It's clearly designed to disparage the subject shows who understands and observes WP:AGF. Kindly stop throwing POV accusations at established editors who have no documented history of POV-pushing. Basically, please observe well-established principles of discussion behavior. You do not have inexperience as an excuse. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, who cares? What matters is this article. No, what matters to you is loudly asserting POV-pushing despite concrete evidence of the editor's neutrality. Actually this is so transparent that I am not going to debate it any further. For the record, I find Trump quite repugnant, but per WP:AGF I should not have to say that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not about Trump. Why do defenders of this page keep mentioning Trump? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * keep per WP:LISTN, WP:LSC and WP:CSC the set of "HRC controversies" is notable and has been discussed in numerous reliable sources, as well as sourcing for each individual controversy. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - See here, just as another source. I believe the brief blurbs attached to each controversy are as neutral as realistically possible, but I think some of the "controversies" are indeed minor gaffes (Speech patterns?) that sit poorly next to the big ones (email scandal, Benghazi). For instance, the White House FBI files controversy, where she was cleared, and the Vince Foster "affair," which seems unfounded (she was cleared, and the Atlantic calls the whole controversy "wholly spurious"). While a "controversy page" is inevitably and inherently negative, I can understand the concerns of other editors that there may be COATRACK and BLP issues. I'm still on the fence about this one. GABgab 00:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment on the speech patterns. If there's consensus to remove it then fine, but it's well-sourced and shows she used an accent that depended upon the listeners' race.  The racial component really bumps up the significance, in my view, and maybe that's why there was so much coverage in reliable sources.  I won't reply further unless you want me to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Various WP:FRINGE theories, most of them fully debunked, an attempt to smear a figure who is controversial to some, and a big BLP fail. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN; sourced, notable, and too expansive for merge into extant WPBIO LavaBaron (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete but for some specific reasons. I think a fully-formed article on this subject, if it presents information that is more useful or relevant than a simple list or category, could add to the encyclopedia's mission in terms of organizing and presenting information. However, this article is a mere 1-2 days old at this point, and is no more than a very brief list. It would be better presented as a category. Whether it is this or anything else, we do need to face the organizational problem of compiling and directing readers to lists of controversies about a given subject, in this case Hillary Clinton. I would give some deference to how we treat this question globally across the encyclopedia, not a case-by-case deletion discussion, and not just about American politicians. What is the policy / guideline / consensus about "list of controversies" articles? Sounds like a category to me. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worth repeating that since 2007 there has been a consensus at WikiProject United States presidential elections that these kinds of articles, and sections within article, are a bad idea. Earlier I wasn't sure how 2016 presidential candidates have been treated but I've now looked at all 27 'name' candidates and ticket nominees (6 Dems, 17 Repubs, 3 Libertarians, 1 Green).  Of these, the only ones with "Controversies" sections or articles are Mike Huckabee (a "Praise and controversy" section that is mostly the latter) and Ben Carson.  Take a look at the Carson section – it's a long list basically intended to make the man look like a liar, a fraud, and an ignorant fool.  Is that the direction we want WP articles to go in?  Be aware that the HRC controversies article that Anythingyouwant has started here is way incomplete.  There are at least 25 additional entries I can think of off the top of my head that meet the same low bar for inclusion and that people will inevitably add: origin of her name, Black Panther Party, working at Commie law firm, memo on Watergate committee, joining the Marines, State troopers, Arkansas slur, defense counsel for rapist, Stand by Your Man, baking cookies and having teas, yelling at Secret Service, seances with Eleanor, removing the Foster files, co-enabling Bill, bringing Dick Morris unto the world, White House gifts, always a Yankees fan, 9/11 funerals, booed at 9/11 concert, St. Louis gas station, under fire in Bosnia, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, put coal miners out of work, Wall Street speeches ...)  I'm sure there are at least a dozen more than I'm not thinking of right now.  The point is, once started, these things become magnets for every bit of slop that can be thrown, just as those Huckabee and Carson sections are now.  Is that the way to go?  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think Carson and Huckabee are the only ones. See, for example, Legal affairs of Donald Trump.  Virtually everything described there is a controversy, no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hadn't looked at that one before. It's also a bad idea – too much numbing detail, too little context, end result inevitably skewed against the subject.  It would be better to merge parts of it into The Trump Organization, into the articles on the various casinos and buildings, and maybe into a new Business career of Donald Trump article, since almost all the lawsuits occur in the context of his businesses.  The main Trump bio article should of course discuss the general pattern of the legal affairs he's been engaged in.  The only thing that doesn't have an obvious place is the Bill Maher orangutan thing ...   Wasted Time R (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem at all with that legal affairs article. Legal affairs is a perfectly valid topic for a living person.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Category:Hillary Clinton controversies. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- this is an obvious WP:COATRACK, and consists almost entirely of WP:SYN. We have Category:Hillary Clinton controversies, and that should suffice. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:LISTN. Obviously the articles listed must be able to stand on their own merits.CFredkin (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Clearly coatrack, POV, BLP violation and goes against  long-term consensus regarding Presidential election articles that such "controversy" articles are to be avoided - as is well-known to the creator of the article. Tvoz / talk 01:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it's not well-known to me that there's any long-term consensus against articles like this, which describes a set of information that has been discussed as a set by many independent reliable sources (see external links in this list). I also have no expectation that there will be any AfD on Legal affairs of Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, if you feel there's little to no expectation there will be an AfD on the Legal affairs of Donald Trump – how about instead of complaining: you start said discussion? Otherwise, your reasons for keeping this article on basis that there are similar articles, is subject to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 05:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to delete that other article, or this one. I and others have cited policies and guidelines above for keeping this article, such as WP:LISTN.  But I don't apologize for also comparing to other articles.  Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, "While these comparisons [to other articles] are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You specifically noted that there would be no AfD of Trump's article, and hence, why ought this article be deleted? --WP:OTHERCRAP. And might I add, those of us supporting a deletion, have cited WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, other AfD discussions on this matter and consensus reached on WikiProjects. If you wish to continue bludgeoning your point, go right ahead – consensus in this discussion, is starting to become quite clear. —Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 05:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Way up this page you accused me of "bludgeoning". Now you do it again.  Maybe that's bludgeoning?  I will have no more replies to the questions you ask me, User:MelbourneStar.  Please note that this particular thread started when an editor specifically referred to me ("the creator of the article") and so I make no apology for politely and briefly replying to that, as well as replying in this thread politely and briefly to a question you specifically directed at me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No clear inclusion criteria. Almost any political position in the United States will be "controversial," for example. The list is a mishmash: some of the entries involve actual investigations; some involve criticism of perceived "gaffes" in the media, and still others are run-of-the-mill political criticism or smears (the "accent" and "adopting last name" bits are particularly silly, and the inclusion of one author's speculation that Clinton and Vince Foster had some sort of romantic relationship is not a "controversy," only an unverified and irresponsible assertion by one author). I also agree with others that have pointed out that it raises BLP concerns for a list entry to give an allegation of misconduct on the part of an individual without also noting that the individual was subsequently cleared. Neutralitytalk 05:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Foster comment. I've improved that entry accordingly ("books allege that her relationship with Foster somehow contributed to his suicide").  The list for quite a while has not mentioned any indictment against anyone who was subsequently cleared while omitting the exoneration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding inclusion criteria, I have added a hidden note that says, "Please do not list a controversy here if you cannot link to a longer treatment of that controversy elsewhere at Wikipedia."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You added a not yet published book (which is a primary source) to claim a plural on this fringe? Seriously? Desperate.--TMCk (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's easy enough to add further sources. For you, I have just added this footnote: Kessler, Ronald.  The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, p. 21 (Crown Publishing Group, 2014): "Hillary had attacked and humiliated her mentor from their former Rose Law Firm in front of other White House aides."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And that is supposed to support what part of content and/or concern exactly? or are we simply doing some OR here?--TMCk (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The following is as well-sourced as anything at Wikipedia: 1993: Suicide of Vince Foster (books describe allegations that her relationship with Foster somehow contributed to his suicide )In any event, WP:AfD says, "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted". Even if there was some deficiency regarding this list's description of the Foster controversy, it has been fixed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What I see is you being evasive, not responding to what was said. Sounds familiar. (And just now (ec) you removed the book from this post above).--TMCk (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's outrageously absurd. You said the Byrne book was not a good source, so I replaced it with a better one (Kessler).  Please see WP:AGF.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not gonna play this game. I'm not here to win an argument but to get answers (I apparently won't get).--TMCk (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

In the end, I haven't seen much evidence that closers give much weight to these extended, extra-policy back-and-forth bickerings. I'd suggest that those of us who know the relevant policy follow the example of Gaijin42 and some others. Make your best policy argument and STFU. Those of us who don't know the policy that well, including me, should make our best partial-policy argument and STFU (I recognize that I failed to follow my own suggestion to some degree), and expect the closer to give less weight to our arguments. But the bickering is unproductive (how often do you see it change someone's mind and !vote?) and probably counterproductive, and certainly makes things harder for the closer. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Another election season coat rack lowering WP standards even more than usual. The pretends of being something else is what annoys me the most. --TMCk (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Violates WP:BLP.--Proud User (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a coatrack, and the very nature of this article is really just lots of undue negative weight on a living person. Any big controversies involving Hillary are best discussed in her main article and sometimes subarticles (i.e. Hillary Clinton email controversy) as Wasted mentioned above. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 21:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per "coatrack" and frankly, undue weight. As another stated above, "[c]ontroversies should be included in the main Hillary Clinton page" or even a sub-page. And it is worth noting that there is already a cat which directs readers to topics included on this list. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (per the obvious coatrack arguments) -- and then grab the article creator firmly by the ear, take it to Arbcom and cut the legs out from under this shit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination, and per TMCk. This is basically opposition research masquerading as a list (the fig-leaf justifications for its existence are sort of insulting to our collective intelligence). The material violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in that there are no clear inclusion criteria. There is also no attempt to present context or assess the credibility of the controversies, which creates a significant WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT concern. The list is redundant with Category:Hillary Clinton controversies, and provides little or no additional context or information. It is unnecessary as a navigational aid, given the existence of the category. Finally, the "keep" arguments seem to boil down to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. MastCell Talk 19:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and the particular latter comments suggest this as examining the article found nothing particularly convincing to suggest its own current article and thus any controversies are still subject to questionability for this article. SwisterTwister   talk  18:20, 16 June 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.