Deletion of Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies

Comment: per TimTempleton. The main article appears to currently have  favorable information about Bomjon and his group of followers, and the tags that claims are not in the refs are worrisome. If most of the articles about them in reliable sources have been negative, then most of the article text based on those sources should be proportionally negative to maintain a . &nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:NPOV)

Comment: to new section Ram Bahadur Bomjon#Media coverage, and, after combining with existing info from Ram Bahadur Bomjon#Claims of media, delete that latter section.  There's no reason for such extensive coverage. Most of the coverage is duplicate coverage of a few events, and so leaving it all in there indirectly violates . No redirect - a granular search is not necessary when all the info is in his main article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:OVERCITE)

Comment: I agree with TimTempleton's comment about merging, but after reading the article and the sourcing, it appears that the article is mainly a  with quite a bit of . Merging the content as-is would present a pretty serious  problem; I think references to these controversies definitely belong on the main article, however
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:OR||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: per , ,  and . Even if this was not so close to bollocks because of how badly it's written, I would still delete it as
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:POV||WP:SOAP||WP:NOTWEBHOST)