Deletion of Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment

Comment: but '''rename''' to something |neutral like "Reception of the Work Capability Assessment" or "Work Capability Assessment controversy"—and balance the content accordingly. The guideline  has two relevant sections. The first, , specifically discourages (but does not prohibit) "Criticism of..." article titles, and encourages the use of more neutral terms like "reception" and "perception". The second, , gives examples where the controversy about topic X can legitimately be split off from the article about X to a separate article—where ''all'' sides of the controversy can be covered. That is what is needed here. There seems to be consensus that the article Work Capability Assessment was getting too long. The controversy can and should be split off, but not in a way that prejudices the points of view covered. As  notes: '(consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).' Also, the new article on the controversy should have a brief (and neutral) summary in the main article, as advised by 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:CFORK||WP:POVFORK||WP:SPINOFF||WP:POVFORK||WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: or '''merge''' back into Work Capability Assessment. This was actually created as a page  to reduce the size of the main article. See the discussion at Talk:Work Capability Assessment#Too long; can it be split?|Talk:Work Capability Assessment § Too long; can it be split? for more information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)