Deletion of Critical response to She Has a Name

Comment: It would be great if all Reception section/articles were this detailed. This could be a valid  because if it was left in the main article it may be undue weight relative to the other sections (e.g. Plot summary, Productions, etc.). No objection to a merge because I think it is still in the realm of reasonableness in terms of weight with the other sections. Deleting because of too much detail is going in the wrong direction
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: I'd failed to notice this one was also AFD'ed. Broadly speaking, see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name|the other related AFD. Here, more specifically, the problem is |undue weight. Start by looking at the She Has a Name#Critical response|critical response section in the parent article. That's a (relatively) reasonable survey of critics' responses to the play, generally in line with what we expect from similar articles. There was nothing special about the critical response to this play, nothing that made the critical response ''itself'' notable or distinctive. Yet this critical response article spends several thousand words conveying the reviews written about it. ''No'' media subject is given this treatment elsewhere in Wikipedia; nearly every newspaper in America has some sort of film review column or section, but each film release's critical response section is not spun off into an article of its own so that each of those voices can be presented; rather, we make editorial determinations as to which are significant and representative. That's the opposite of what was done here. And make no mistake, many of these critical response voices are from extraordinarily minor local news sources. That it is possible to assemble a facially well-written article thus doesn't make it compliant with policy; rather, it makes it promotional
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: others hinted at it above, but with the main ''She Has a Name'' article sitting at only 29K of prose, I don't believe this meets the criteria for . If the main article was at least 50K, I would consider "keep", and if it was at 70K I'd probably go with "strong keep, bad nom" (eg: Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix vs Jimi Hendrix) .... but it isn't, so I can't. Under the circumstances present, since the title is not what I would consider a typical search term, I would go with "delete". However, I believe I should make an exception here as in this case, merging the critical response back into the main article is probably going to be a lengthy and difficult task, and destroying properly reviewed prose and sources so editors cannot retrieve them (via the history) to do the merge is unhelpful - |there's no rush to do it
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF||WP:NODEADLINE)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)