Deletion of The New York Times and the Holocaust (2nd nomination)

Comment: Non-encyclopedic topic, gives |undue weight to minority opinions. (No more than 3 people are cited as discussing this issue in any way.) Anything beyond a brief blurb in the main NYT article is uncalled for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: as per ... |non encyclopedic cross categorization similar to "Recessions in the Wall Street Journal" or "9/11 on Fox News"... but this one was blatantly created to push a point of view... not something that can be fixed by normal editing because the article's very existence is the POV of a single editor's original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: and attempt to salvage the reputation of wikipedia. (Oh, reasons. Obvious POV fork and totally 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I don't see why we should have a separate article for this. The whole thing seems like an attack page based on |SYN. Although there are sources, it just seems totally unnecessary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: It seems easy to find scholarly sources covering this topic such as ''http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/harvard_international_journal_of_press_politics/v005/5.2leff.html On the Inside Pages: The Holocaust in the New York Times, 1939-1945''.  The topic is therefore notable and so it is our |editorial policy to find a place for it.  Forcing the material into a criticism article would be contrary to our core principle of  as this would, by its title, frame the issue as a criticism rather than a matter-of-fact study of the editorial judgement of the day.  And, under whatever title we choose to cover this topic, we should not delete the current title as it seems a good neutral search term and the edit history is needed to attribute the contributions in accordance with our Creative Commons licence
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Article is a clear POV fork based on flimsy ground. Sure, a couple of authors have been critical, but per  we do not base a whole article on that. Where is the |secondary source with an analysis of what other media outlets were doing at the time? In some other article dealing with broader issues, it may be suitable to mention the claims re the NYT, but if a large claim is made,  applies and strong sources are required (sources with an analysis of the overall situation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:SECONDARY||WP:REDFLAG)

Comment: per  and as a POV fork.  An entire article based on the ''opinion'' of two authors?  Throw a paragraph into Criticism of The New York Times if you like, but this does not merit a standalone article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)