Deletion of Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies

Comment: because: '''(1)''' This is an important  article with enough  &  about an important  and controversial movement. '''(2)''' The nominator has spent a lot of time in recent YEARS and many MONTHS https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies&offset=&limit=500&action=history whittling away at this article for well over TWO YEARS having single-handedly shredded it beyond recognition of its meat, bones and sinews, and now claims "look the patient is ''now'' a skeletal 'coat-rack'" well, ha, what do you expect after a POV campaign to make chopped meat of this article that few other editors have had the stomach to participate in with such tenacity. Take a look at the original article ''before'' the nominator shredded it over at least two years, say at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies&oldid=559790971 June 201'''3''' and it is an incredibly coherent, scholarly and acceptable article with all due  & . '''(3)''' While the nominator has had plenty of time to shred the article, there seems to be an obvious . He does not even have the courtesy to inform {{user|David Spart}} who started the hard work here in '''February 2007''' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies&offset=20070305095758&limit=500&action=history about this deletion discussion per accepted WP norms who started the hard work. '''(4)''' This nomination gets into the problematic area that was dealt with with in a 2010 ArbCom case, see for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement#Editors encouraged: "Editors on Chabad articles are encouraged to use talkpage discussion and, if that fails, other available content-dispute resolution techniques, in connection with any remaining content disputes. This includes, among other things, disagreements concerning the weight to be given to Chabad views versus other Jewish points of view in Judaism articles, concerning whether articles about Chabad-related topics or persons should be deleted, and concerning inclusion of links" -- and that procedure was not used here, rather a resort to slow-motion editing to favor the pro-Chabad point of view obviously. '''(5)''' This kind of topic is a natural subject within the parameters of its super parent :Category:Religious controversies and its immediate parent :Category:Judaism-related controversies that includes at least 27 other such sub-categories and 115 articles mired in genuine ''controversies'' connected with Judaism, and no one would suggest to shut any of them down as subjects for tenuous  &  "reasons" either. '''(6)''' There was an overwhelming  to Keep this article with lengthy discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch. '''Finally''' not only should this article be kept, but ALL material that has been edited out and removed by the nominator over the last two years should be restored or at least be put up for full and lengthy discussion on its related talk page per the 2010 ArbCom ruling/s regarding Chabad-related article on WP, or else more serious sanctions should be considered and/or implemented. Thank you
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:COI||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT||WP:CONSENSUS)