Deletion of Jack Hyles Controversy

Comment: looking over the main Jack Hyles page, it appears this POV fork is the result of edit wars there.  POV fork is only appropriate in reference to large articles that will benefit from branching off.  Jack Hyles is barely a stub and this fork appears to be an "out of sight, out of mind" attempt to avoid confrontation.  If these claims are  and can be legitimately sourced without being , then protest by those who don't want this information posted in the main Jack Hyles should be ignored and continued reverts by them subject to censure.  If, on the other hand, this information is not  or violates , it doesn't even belong on a fork
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: again... this seems to be a fork that is there strictly to create an "out of sight out of mind" scenario.  The main article has not grown enough to merit a fork.  To quote POV fork: ''"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion."''  As I said above, if the criticisms of Mr. Hyles are If these claims are  and can be legitimately sourced without being , they should stay in the article and anyone who initiates an edit war by repeatedly deleting material should be warned and then banned if they continue. Conversely, if the criticisms are not  or violate  then they do not belong on Wikipedia at all and anyone who repeatedly adds this information should be warned and then banned if they continue.  Forking just to keep 2 opposing sides from having to work together is, in my opinion, not a supported reason for a fork and is bad precedent.  You kids will have to learn to play nicely together
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:V||WP:NOR)