Deletion of Ideological bias on Wikipedia

Comment: Little of the keep arguments have discussed the fact that this article is a |POV fork, and none have been able to refute it. Contrary to those that claim this meets GNG, the topic is just an essay featuring |fringe quotes, not something even attempting to be an encyclopedic subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: subject is notable but there are  concerns
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: WP:POVFORK and . The academic studies cited say that it's not really a thing, yet the er wants to include material from creationists, birthers and cranks saying it is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:OWN)

Comment: As much as I abhor the idea internally-driven of self-censorship, this article is based entirely a blatant POV fork. Though sources are cited, Wikipedia is |not an indiscriminate collection of information for fringe viewpoints striving to establish some semblance of balance. I will also bring up  and note that the criticism levied at Wikipedia could be added to other articles, and a standalone article is not overly necessary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:PAGEDECIDE)

Comment: I do not find the  arguments persuasive (in those few comments where an attempt to explain the  supposed forking was even made). Of course an article like Criticism of Wikipedia may have some overlap with an article such as this - that is to be expected in a generic article like the former. This is a notable topic that has been covered in its own right by reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: A  is an article "that ... instead focuses on another subject entirely."  No, this article is about purported ideological bias on Wikipedia, like the title says. Not a ; this really seems to be forked from the section at Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship, which is more like this article than it is different. To the extent this article has any major problem ... and it certainly does ... it is that it sets forth to answer matters regarding which our sources have only arguable insights, not reliable conclusions. The result is a collection of loosely-connected paragraphs summarizing sources that don't add up to an encyclopedic narrative. At any rate, I'm not sure this article is a tremendous net positive for the wiki in its present state, but I also can not agree that it is the massive policy violation the delete !voters are alleging
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: as a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: an excuse to quote  content that boils down to "they don't agree with my unorthodox and unsupported claims" complaints from reactionaries, antivaxxers, and the like. Nothing of value here that doesn't belong in reliability of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (:WP:FRINGE)

Comment: as a  and an example of |"Original Research" by synthesis. The topic can be, and indeed has been, discussed better in other articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Meets  as this topic has been covered numerous times in media since Wikipedia's inception.  Merits its own article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: straightforward  of Criticism of Wikipedia that provides nothing beyond what's already there and which seems to only serve to highlight a few extremely specific criticisms that the article's creator particularly agreed with.  The massive length relative to the small number of opinions (which skew heavily towards opinion pieces) also gives the impression that this article, by its very nature, is giving  weight to specific  criticisms that would be better handled as one part of the larger criticism article.  Devoting a massive paragraph or section each to numerous extremely-fringe / low-quality criticisms is , and if we were to clean that up the article would be like a paragraph long with nothing worthwhile that isn't better covered in the main article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:UNDUE||WP:FRINGE||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Remaining pretty neutral on the other issues, but  (which is an essay), doesn't even remotely apply.  In any case, coatracked content is a reason to trim such content out, not to delete an article.  People using this as a rationale should probably have their !votes ignored.  &ndash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Embarrassingly poor ; any viable content already has a home elsewhere as mentioned above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Its distinct topic with scholarly literature dealing with the issue.The articles that were cited in the nomination already too large so per  they should be split
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZE)

Comment: the 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)