Deletion of Criticism of Bell Canada

Comment: I see this page as an attack page. It is not appropriate material for any encyclopaedia. |The existence of similar articles is not a reason to retain it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: difficult decision for me, as I hate Bell Canada with a passion! (250$ bill - what?)  However, this article does suffer from neutrality issues.  It is essentially a . Sources are about Bell Canada, not "Criticism of Bell Canada".  An article like "Bell Canada billing practices", which covered all aspects of Bell's billing practices, both positive and negative, would satisfy our NPOV requirements.  This article does not. If this was a BLP, there would be little argument. (''Not'' suggesting corps. should have the same rights as people ;)).  These "Criticism of" articles fail , they present one side of the story, and have a "point" - namely that Bell sucks. (Which may well be true, but it is subjective, and not within our mandate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:NOTADVOCACY)

Comment: The topic and title are inherently not neutral, contrary to |core policy: "''Articles mustn't take sides
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: This is essentially a . The concept itself of criticism particular to this company does not rise to the level of . Negative press, which may be understood as critical by readers, does not necessarily ''report that there is criticism of the company''. Criticism may be implicit and topically relevant to the company itself, but criticism most clearly merits a stand-alone article when the ''topic of criticism'' of the company is what's covered. Contents of this article that are actually noteworthy should be folded into the Bell Canada article, even as its own ===Criticism=== or event-based subsection, as |due weight indicates. Not every bit of negative press will be of enduring significance; I expect a summary statement supported by several reliable citations would be sufficient
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:GNG||WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: Rather than outright deletion, ''merging'' the sourced content to the Bell Canada article's Criticism section would satisfy . The Criticism section at the Bell Canada article currently has a 'Main article' template that directs readers to this article. If this article is deleted, the criticism section of the Bell Canada article would remain as significantly devoid of content, despite sourced criticism that has occurred
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)