Deletion of Criticism of Joko Widodo

Comment: Criticism of a head of state is a perfectly valid reason for an article and highly notable, and not a BLP violation if it's inline with valid sources. Plenty of sources in English media.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/04/joko-widodo-how-indonesias-obama-failed-to-live-up-to-the-hypehttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-13/jokowi-defends-corruption-law-changes-criticized-by-right-groupshttps://www.dw.com/en/opinion-joko-widodos-last-chance-to-fulfill-his-promises-to-indonesia/a-48371002https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/12/with-friends-like-these-indonesia-jokowi-joko-widodo/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/world/asia/indonesia-president-inauguration-protest.html We have similar articles on other world leaders. Obviously the article needs to be free from conspiracy theories and only based on criticism from ''reliable sources'', including respected human rights groups, and so the neutrality of the article should be addressed. The article is extremely detailed and extensive, so I don't see the point of . Just remove any unsubstantiated content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The article in its current form does not only ''list'' third-party criticism as documented in reliable sources, but also uses combined data from reliable sources to ''express'' criticism, in violation of . The article ''appears'' superficially well-sourced, but sources are to a great deal misused to prop up the personal opinion expressed by the page creator by means of this article. I have started to deconstruct the article by removing every material that does not represent third-party criticism documented in reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: as how it is constructed now (both in grammar and style). An entire article dedicated to listing every single point of negativity is against , in particular as described in . This kind of stuff is more appropriately and neutrally addressed in an article titled Presidency of Joko Widodo
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:CRITS)

Comment: with Joko Widodo, or else '''Delete''' as a . Also per . Jimbo Wales is quoted on that page with https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/045586.html this comment. The page author's argument that there is no consensus as to whether a criticism article is ''always'' a POVFORK is not relevant in this case. This case clearly is a POVFORK as it is not a balanced article. Does not adhere to 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:CRIT||WP:NPOV)

Comment: AFD is not clean-up and NPOV problems is not a reason for deletion. On a side note,  recommends titling articles without the word criticism and instead using the words perception or reception in order to keep a more neutral point of view within an article. For those with NPOV concerns, I recommend retitling the article Perception of Joko Widodo and bringing in some other points of view into the article to balance it out. That's a discussion for the article's talk page though and not at AFD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)