Deletion of Criticism and response in parapsychology

Comment: per #SOAP. The article, consisting as it does as a debate between two parties, reads like an Apologetics|apology for parapsychology. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: this is an |POV fork essay that results in a screed favoring one view, in violation of #SOAP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:NOT)

Comment: because it is a valid topic for an article. The parapsychology article should discuss the field of parapsychology itself with a summary of the criticism, but the criticism itself has a great deal of otability and source material of its own. It has its own history, its own key players, and so on. I strongly recommend a re-write, however, and a title change to ''Criticism of parapsychology''. The re-write should change it from a criticism and response format, and soon, for several reasons. One, it really does seem like it's leading the reader towards one intepretation. Two, it suffers from stylistic problems where it looks like a forum, blog, or a collection of notes, and doesn't read like a fluid article. All of these things aren't a reason for deletion however. They're reasons for a re-write. That seems to be the general consensus thus far, even among the delete votes. The calls for delete (from what I read) are all based on style and content, not topic. The article itself shouldn't be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per Markeer.  This article is not a POV or Content Fork, it is instead a “spinout” article that falls under _fork#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles|article spinouts, summary style.  The main parapsychology article is currently 42KB long and growing - larger than the Wikipedia recommended size of 32KB, the main body of prose is slightly smaller in size, but still in range for spinoffs.  Criticism of parapsychology is a notable and relevant subject.  I agree that the article needs a rewrite and should be renamed, but it should not be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: or '''Rewrite''' per #SOAP. The point/counterpoint "rebuttal of criticism" format is inappropriate and reads like a personal editorial page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: the question and answer format is a |thinly-disguised vehicle for the promotion of a |point of view and is therefore completely at odds with a meta:Foundation issues|core Wikipedia policy. If kept, it would create a disastrous precedent, encouraging the creation of POV-packed 'Criticism and response' articles on every controversial subject on Wikipedia. I sincerely doubt it will be rewritten in a timely manner, and it is not a good idea to preserve grossly POV pieces in the hope that they will be fixed in the future
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:NPOV)

Comment: An article's temporary content is not a reason to delete it; the article has good potential even though it is a bit |soapy. All ya gotta do is take out the soap! Lots of people (like myself) who don't know a lot about parapsychology are going to wonder what is so controversial about a lot of it, and what specific arguments have been made for or against it. This article is where they will find this information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: and merge relevant criticism into main article. It's basically a list of "answers" to strawman arguments, a POV fork which violates #Undue weight and gives the impression that the critcism (which is made up of strawmen to begin with) has been decisively rebutted. Criticism/controversy should be incorporated into the main parapsychology article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)