Deletion of Criticism of Human Rights Watch (2nd nomination)

Comment: Given that criticism ''sections'' are considered dodgy -wise these days, to have an entire POV-slanted article dedicated to criticism of an organisation is untenable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Criticism of HRW is notable. HRW itself http://www.hrw.org/en/node/84956 has responded to some of the criticism and definitely not . This is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles spin-off of the main HRW article. What is required is the expansion of this article and include HRW's response to criticism, not outright deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: 1)''' Regarding WP:UNDUE: HRW's own viewpoint - one of its main reasons for existence - is that people should have the right to criticise governments, political parties, organisations, private companies, etc. without risking imprisonment, torture or being killed for the fact that they spoke up. In this sense, having a full article documenting known criticism of HRW is fully within the spirit of what HRW is all about. i am sure that even HRW has published some self-criticisms - it's not a cult organisation.  '''(2)''' The ''criticism'' article, preceding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch&diff=306203492&oldid=305839333 the deletion of many sections, may have lacked proper referencing, but that requires work, not deletion. '''(3)''' Another important point is that |en.wikipedia is not USA.wikipedia.org and it is not westernworld.wikipedia.org either. Please read the documented, systematic bias discussed in . Given that Human_Rights_Watch#Financing_and_services|approximately 100% of HRW's funding is from the West, this is an objective reason to suspect that a pro-Western bias is very likely, and to especially seek  in non-Western information sources, in order to improve the overall neutrality of en.wikipedia.  In other words, "majority" in WP:UNDUE for the subject of HRW and criticism of HRW refers to a world-wide majority, not a USA+Israel+UK-wide majority. '''(4)''' "WTF" in the reasons for deletion - "''anti-Eritrea bias'' (WTF?)" - is not an argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS||WP:BIAS||WP:RS)