Deletion of Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military

Comment: My first thought was that (per the deletion nom) it should be a section in the main Prostitution in South Korea article. However, that would be ridiculous, as the article proposed for deletion is much longer than the target article, and merging it would result in a badly unbalanced article with undue weight given to a subtopic. It's unfortunate but not at all unusual to have a better or more-developed article for a narrow topic than for an overview topic. A section that threatens to overwhelm a main article is precisely when a content fork may be legitimately created, per . Even the nominator says ''the subject appears to have received |significant coverage from multiple |reliable sources.'' Unless an article represents a topic duplication (''not'' just an overlap that can be accounted for with a ummary style|summary section), an AfD has to be evaluated on its own merits, and I'm not seeing any criterion for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:S)

Comment: per . This is a notable topic, but the article is POV-pushing train wreck. As some examples from a single paragraph, it states that "Former South Korean prostitutes remark that they have been the biggest sacrifice of the South Korea-United States alliance" - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/world/asia/08korea.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&sq=Comfort& the source specifically attributes this remark to a single woman. "The women also see themselves as war victims" - http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2896741 the source is clearly referring only to the views of a group of 60 women. "They are seeking compensation and apologies" - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/world/asia/08korea.html?_r=2&scp=8&sq=Comfort%20Women%20Korean%20War&st=cse the source is also clearly talking about the views of a group, and not all as this implies. Earlier in the article it's stated that "Second Republic viewed prostitution as something of a necessity" - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/world/asia/08korea.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&sq=Comfort the source states only that "Transcripts of parliamentary hearings also suggest that at least some South Korean leaders viewed prostitution as something of a necessity", and so does not support such an unequivocal statement. The article also contains the difficult to believe statement that "During the 1960s, camp town prostitution and related businesses generated nearly 25 percent of the South Korean GNP" - http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2896741 the source carefully attributes this to the view of a single academic, but that's been left out here. A fair amount of material is about prostitution in South Korea in general, so it's unclear why it's here. I'd note that the author of this article has also been engaging in similar POV-pushing in the Recreation and Amusement Association article. Much of the text in this article is only slightly changed from the sources, so I suspect that this should also be deleted on copyright grounds
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)