Deletion of Polish death camp controversy

Comment: I see not so much as an insinuation here that there isn't concern within the Polish community as to the use of certain terms. The nomination had to do with two issues: the notion that there was "controversy" (when not one example was provided), and the opinion that much of the article amounted to original research.  We now have one example (a CTV news story) in which the use of two terms "Polish ghetto" and "Polish camp" brought controversy. While I don't feel that this is enough to justify the title (I appear to be alone in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish_death_camp_controversy&diff=228714249&oldid=228706150 suggesting an alternate), I don't think it a reason for deletion. The issue of original research appears to have been laid to rest by Mansford in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_death_camp_controversy&diff=231009026&oldid=230999658 removing the "Examples" section. While this deletion has yet to be challenged, I think it important to point out that previous attempts to make more minor adjustments to this section prior to this AfD were quickly reversed. It seems that what was once defended is now recognized as |original research. My recommendation that the article be kept should not suggest that I don't see problems. I agree with DGG's comments on the sentence "The phrases such as the "Polish death camp" leave a false impression that it might have been the Poles who were responsible for the Nazi German genocide". Furthermore, I question the sentence which follows "While in some cases the intention of the writers is the mere geographical use of the term 'Polish' and no attribution of responsibility is actually intended, at least one Polish diplomat has suggested that there are instances of "bad will. Under the pretext that 'it’s only a geographic reference', attempts are made to distort history and conceal the truth." In "some cases" more than implies that there exists an unspecified percentage of cases in which ill-intent comes into play; and yet, we are presented with no evidence of such - even in the CTV case. These concerns alone are not enough to call for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I missed this source but the American Jewish committe explicitly apologised for the misleading term 'polish camps' http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=1531911&ct=873437 here. Surely, this topic is not  and passes  and  now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: This is a major issue with Poles who are extremely offended when non-Poles refer to the WWII 'Polish death camps' or 'death camps in Poland' because it was the German Nazis who instituted and ran this system. It was the Nazis who ran Aushwitz, not the Poles. Its not just someone's fringe ranting or . I could have written this article myself...if I had any interest in the matter. Moreover, are we going to treat this excellent Adelaide Now http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21984315-912,00.html article on the issue as someone's 'original theory'?  The article affirms the topic's notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: A Controversy|controversy or dispute occurs when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion. Where are the "parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion" about this issue? All there is are isolated examples of largely innocent mischaracterizations. There are exactly ZERO cases of an active dispute, such as Party A objects to the term, but Party B insists the term is valid. There is one citation of a Polish official putting forth some sort of conspiracy theory, but unfortunately he neglects to name the conspirators, therefore making it impossible to identify the shadowy figures whom he claims are out to "distort history and conceal the truth." The examples section is entirely |original research. It is not sourced to any reliable sources indicating "controversy", but is a compilation tossed together based on an editors Googling the terms. This whole article is misleadingly titled, and largely Original Research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)