Deletion of Criticism of Jainism

Comment: Otherstuff" aside, this page raises questions that really do come up with all "Criticism of (a religion)" articles: whether the discussants are motivated by  or , and whether such pages are, intrinsically, problematic as POV-forks or vandal-magnets, etc. – and nominations such as this one are perennials at AfD. We can easily go around in these circles, but in the end, the subject matter satisfies . The page currently cites approximately a dozen sources (depending on how one counts them) that satisfy , demonstrating enduring interest among reliable secondary sources. Looking at what else might be available as sourcing, the amount of scholarly sources are, indeed, somewhat lesser than for many other criticisms of religions: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Criticism+of+Jainism%22, but such coverage does exist. And with 200+ hits in books: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Criticism+of+Jainism%22, this is clearly something that does not fail GNG. If there are problems with cherry-picking of material from the sources, that can be fixed through the editing process, and is not an inevitable and intrinsic characteristic of the page, and therefore is not a valid reason to delete. Likewise for being a vandal-magnet, where there is always the possibility of page protection. The question of merging into the parent page is a subjective one, but given the existence of sufficient sourcing to pass GNG as a standalone page, I do not see any compelling reason to merge (and IDONTLIKEIT certainly is not a compelling reason). There have been many previous discussions about "Criticism of" articles, not just of religions, and the previous consensus has always been against eliminating such pages as a general rule, so ''that'' is not a good reason for merging in this case. I've read all of this discussion so far, and I do not see a valid argument (separate from personal dislike) that GNG has not been satisfied. It does not fail GNG, and it does not fail , so on policy grounds it's a keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:NOT)