Deletion of Criticism of Vladimir Putin

Comment: The nomination appears to be predicated on the idea that criticism is inherently non-neutral and representing criticism on Wikipedia violates the  policy. That is untrue. As for the article itself, it's clearly a notable topic; there is no need to delete it. Moreover, since the nomination is erroneous, there is not even a potentially valid basis for deletion offered -- so a speedy keep would not be out of order
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: most "criticism of..." articles are POV forks and I see no reason why this one is different. Per , a core policy, criticism should be discussed in the main articles in a balanced and encyclopedic fashion. "Criticism of..." is too often an excuse to throw in everything but the kitchen sink
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per travb and per  itself, which does not prohibit criticism articles, but rather says, "At least the 'Criticism of ... ' article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the 'Criticism of ... ' article." Vladimir_Putin#Criticism is a reasonably-sized section of a long article, so a divergent article is appropriate. And, most importantly from my perspective, ''any'' attempt to stifle (sourced) criticism, on the basis that it is indeed criticism, is a form of censorship, and Wikipedia is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: I understand nomination concern with , but this should be addressed  in the discussion page of the article and thru editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: No, we do not have most of this information in his BLP article. His BLP article is already too big and therefore should be divided to smaller pages (see ). Please see :Category:Criticisms. Are we going to delete all these hundreds articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS)

Comment: or merge. As per : "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no meritFurther, criticism articles are common, and are not considered POVforks, such as Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Tony Blair around 100 more
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: and consider salt. Per  and . This article is a . What likely happened is that the people who don't like Putin weren't able to put all the criticism they wanted in the article about Putin so they created a separate article. If this article were to remain there should also be an article called Appreciation for Vladimir Putin. The fact that there |are other articles called "Criticism of X" is irrelevant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV||WP:POVFORK||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)