Deletion of Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination)

Comment: There's definitely room to improve the article by tightening the prose regarding D. D. Palmer (that narrative is rather lengthy in comparison to its importance, though it does bear mention as a well-referenced example of many of the practices that have been criticized, or which were controversial). (I don't really see that as a duplication of chiropractic history—the emphasis in this article is clearly more focused on Palmer's opinions and conduct, and reactions to those things.) And perhaps, the vaccination/fluoridation section could be improved by finding a broader range of sources to describe the prevalence and consequences of that particular branch of chiropractic. (These are minor cleanup issues, and not major problems with the article.) However, in general, my comments from rticles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism|the first AfD still hold true. The article is well-sourced, with reference to both assenting and dissenting views, and definitely meets the notability burden.I was actually Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_problem_is_the_very_existence_of_Criticism_of_X|discussing criticism articles earlier today, and my opinion here is similar: criticism should be discussed within the main article (in proportion to its importance), but when the volume of coverage of criticism is sufficient to warrant a more thorough discussion—and especially when the state of the Wikipedia article is such that editors have contributed more properly-sourced information about criticism than support—it's perfectly appropriate to summarize in the main article, and fork it and write a standalone article about the criticism. (This actually mitigates the emphasis of criticism in the main article, deservedly or not.) Of course the tone of the article should be neutral, but that doesn't mean that limiting the scope of the article to the discussion of "negative" things is inherently non-neutral or undesirable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: Criticism exists and is documented and is notable. Criticism articles aren't ''Eo ipso|eo ipso'' POV, they are content forks that keep main topic articles in conformance with  in regard to size. This has been established in other AFDs. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Criticism+of&namespace=0 List of wikipedia pages starting with "Criticism of". POV should be sorted by editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS)

Comment: Per , "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia". This article was created even though criticism is present throughout the article Chiropractic, and even thought a large portion of this article was copied over from Chiropractic history. The article serves to highlight negative viewpoints/facts, and has avoided positive viewpoints/facts to the point of editing them out of the article and blocking their addition
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: DigitalC, can you explain why you are nominating this now? Because it seems to me that, when you couldn't get consensus for your changes on the talk page, you nominated it here, which seems rather |pointy to me
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)