Deletion of Criticisms of Harry Reid (3rd nomination)

Comment: A  usually entails disagreement over content. I don't see objections to specific content at the article, nor at Harry Reid. I might remind everyone "do not refer to forks as 'POV' except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Reid is certainly controversial enough for an article such as this, and there is too much sourced material to just delete it all. However, I would make a few changes... I suggest that the article be renamed and content added to balance the article. Remember: "It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per nom. & others. The article runs afoul of , , & 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:COATRACK||WP:UNDUEWEIGHT)

Comment: I'm a huge supporter of the  method of article development, but I have long considered these "Criticisms of " articles are the wrong way to go about it.  Frequently they suffer from undue weight.  On topics where there really are a lot of reliable sources saying things on both sides of the argument (like polarizing politicians), it's ''still'' a balance problem.  Praise of Harry Reid?  That wouldn't make it a week before being deleted as a hagiographical POV fork.  And, thus, so should this, as its opposite
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT)