Deletion of Criticism of kemalism

Comment: I agree with you. Both summary and detailed articles must conform with . Again, POV does not warrant a deletion. I don't oppose merging, if the merged article does not reduce readability. When it is necessary to split the section into more detailed articles, then this article can be re-created again. However, I still stand for my keep opinion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: as . Editor has a point to make by the looks of it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: WP:POVFORK and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Thank you. Per , which is also in POVFORK, it says: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork". And being POV does not warrant a deletion, but only a content dispute. Here, I've tagged this article with {{tl|pov}} template. Of course, the summary in the Kemalism's Criticism... section should be expanded a little bit (here I tagged it also
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: WP:POVFORK and a lot of  linking Kemalism to racism. The criticism of Kemalism is not a large enough subject to be worthy of its own article, and it appears to be driven purely by a POV motive. As a member of the reek_and_Turkish_wikipedians_cooperation_board, I think by it existing as an article by itself we are promoting POV behavior on top of my original objections rather than just adding to Kemalism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:G)

Comment: WP:POVFORK. The issues in the article are recent events which the article claims to be related with the ideology itself. The personal opinions of journalists, without collaboration from the established sources, are not established facts, and most of the claims fall into |Original Work. However, justified arguments can be easily integrated into the original article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I have to say keep because there is no violation of  in this article. Comparing this article with the said forking articke Kemalism, there's no attempt to avoid  with this separate article. Instead this article is merely a . Per , this article already shows enough |reliable sources and can contain detailed information of Kemalism#Criticism of Kemalism section. Only some  issues remain
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:NPOV||WP:SPINOUT||WP:NOTE||WP:SOURCE||WP:MOS)

Comment: Wheew, there are a lot of POVFORK shouts and it's too bad that the creator has been blocked for a week for edit warring and 3RR. Regardless of what the author nationalistic-POV-biased intention when (s)he started the article, I investigated again #REASON for this AfD debate. There's no single item there as the basis for the article deletion. Not even for a POV! Now, if some editors feel the unreliability of sources given in this article, I'd looked one of the links from the article. Especially, http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=30073 this news article explains  that Criticism of Kemalism is a notable topic, even for ECHR. There are other news articles from reliable publishers in this article. Basically, the article has |reliable sources, |not an original research (it's a notable term that is also coined by a European institution), but it's not |neutral. Again, non-neutrality does not warrant a deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)