I'm holding off from making any edits to the article in the meantime because at this point, you're cherrypicking my points and interpreting policy to meet your needs, and I shouldn't get into an edit war (and shouldn't have gotten into one in the first place). But I'll address the specific points you've made:
While I didn't make the Mac Observer edit myself so I can't speak for the original editor, but I believe the point of the citation wasn't so much to make any particular point about the accuracy of Enderle's predictions (though I suppose that could be implied), but to point out how often Enderle has predicted Apple's failure, if not demise. Though more importantly, it illustrates that Enderle is target of criticism, deserved or otherwise. And I don't see how you could question the Death Knell Counter's credibility, when it links directly to cited articles. And I have no earthly idea why you quoted the policy on academic journals when we're talking about the validity of an internet site list (which itself is subject to scrutiny from the site's editors and readers).
The operative term in the policy you quote is "disproportionate", which is to say, if an article's subject is subject of overwhelming criticism, than it makes sense for criticisms to dominate the article, and conversely, if the subject receives mostly praise, then it doesn't make sense for the article to be negative. But the way the article was before you erased the paragraph about the criticism seemed to be fairly balanced, with his accomplishments and prominence receiving the majority of coverage. And again, if he has his defenders/apologists, then feel free to cite them. Your edits aren't so much eliminating disproportionate criticisms, but whitewashing the article.
I do not beleive that WP:NPOV gives a particular editor the right to outsource their WP:NPOV responsibility to another editor. - you clearly misunderstand the policy and the reason for my edits. Criticism against Enderle exists. Those criticism against Enderle come from prominent sources. Again, accurate or not, criticism from notable sources should be in the article. That you referred to Gruber as "a John Doe" suggests that you don't know enough about him to make any judgment about his notability, and your characterizing Gruber's criticisms of Enderle as "personal attacks" tells me you didn't read the cited posts carefully. 
 The Gruber and Death Knell citations were properly sourced. They, in turn, linked to specific Enderle quotes that they criticize. You might not disagree with what they wrote, but they are not libelous, which is what the biography policy attempts to avoid. The policy you cite doesn't apply here. 98.204.112.111