Deletion of Criticism of the War on Terror

Comment: In general I oppose POVFORKs because they are so regularly used as a way to hide or wall off legitimate criticism of organizations and institutions.  In this case, it is justified by the length of both articles.  That said, it's a lousy article, dealing as it does with only certain kinds of criticism, it lacks, to give just one example, a section on the sizable and serious critiques of American strategy and tactics being made by military analysts on grounds of ineffectiveness.  It might also be interesting to have something on the campaign-related upsurge of right wing (Trump) and left wing (Sanders) isolationist critiques of the "War."   There is also an inappropriate POV tone to much of the writing, it is, for example, usual on such pages to discuss "Allegations of Hypocrisy..." Rather than assert Hypocrisy of the... in a  subhead.  That said, even highly biased s can pass notability.  This topic does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: While undoubtedly a fork, there's no particular argument for POV as disagreement with the War on Terror is a notable subject on it's own.  Over 60 footnotes on this page so no issue of , , or  and reduces any reasonable suspicion of .  I would guess this AfD has a |snowball's chance in hell of resulting in deletion, but that will be up to a closing admin
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE||WP:GNG||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:SNOW)

Comment: per all of the above. A legitimate sub-topic that easily passes . The aforementioned POV issues should be resolved on the talk page and through improvements to the article. There is no apparent reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per  "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SKCRIT)