Deletion of Lyme disease controversy

Comment: using (a) verification of all claims at the point of editing them into the article using (b) citations of reliable sources, with (c) care and attention being paid to NPOV and . If this section becomes too large (and only if this happens, given the quality of the sources that should be used) consider splitting off the section into main article of its own
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: The controversy itself, as a separate entity from the disease, is notable.  It must be addressed, since it has significant media coverage; so if this page were deleted, it would bloat the main article.  The controversy has two aspects - the media/cultural issues, and the actual medical controversy.  I'm not familiar enough with the scientific issues to know whether the alternative ideas about it are a fringe theory or not, but there is no doubt that whatever those issues are, there has been significant debate about it, too much to simply ignore. From a purely policy standpoint, the controversy as a topic meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: or, as an alternative, '''Stub and rewrite from scratch using reliable sources and reining in meatpuppetry''': Horrible, horrible |POV fork and a focus of extensive |meatpuppetry. There is probably enough material for a good, encyclopedic content fork on the controversies surrounding Lyme disease, but this article isn't it. It should be stubbed and material should be added piecemeal with reference to specific reliable sources. Additionally, extensive administrative oversight is needed to address the serious problems with agenda-driven meat- and sockpuppetry which make this article and Lyme disease nearly uneditable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:MEAT)

Comment: to Lyme disease and delete '''Redirect'''; with Tim Vickers tightening of the article, and accounting for duplicate text in the two articles, I believe the main article can now incorporate a merge (in terms of  as measured by Dr pda's page size script).  The controversy does need to be mentioned somewhere on Wiki, but the coordinated meatpuppetry, fringe theory, and sockpuppetry issues can be more effectively dealt with by having all of the content in one article.  Per Mastcell's plea, I see no evidence that some of the "keep" declarers will help maintain the separate article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZE)