Deletion of Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings (2nd nomination)

Comment: The original article Russian apartment bombings is very big. So, it only makes sense to create a number of sub-articles per  and briefly summarize the corresponding content in main article. I wanted to do just that but I could not, because nominator of this AfD reverted all my changes there. But that is what should be done. Note that we have the following ''sub-articles'' on this subject in ruwiki
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS)

Comment: as per nom and DGG. This is a classic  created by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: The article needs considerable work, obviously. It is very good at expounding on its subject without being PoV (where editors in this and the previous AfD contend that ''by'' expounding its subject, it is PoV), but the nominators and respondents are quite correct in stating that mentions of alternate views are completely lacking. Lacking a perspective can itself be described as PoV, but for the sake of the distinction, I hope you will agree that there is no other sort of PoV in it. As usual for AfD, the nomination overreaches the mandate of  by suggesting that content is grounds for deletion. As usual, this is a matter for the talk page. Note that there are only three entries in talk, all by the same person. That AfDs are commonly used in lieu of discussion and improvement is all the more reason to oppose such attempts
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELETION)

Comment: an article purporting to give "evidence" for a controversial conspiracy theory seems like a darn clear case of blatant violation of  fork (we are not supposed to have such articles on Wiki). Any chance we'll have something like Evidence of CIA involvement in the World Trade Center attacks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: per . When Biophys doesn't reach consensus with other editors, he starts spawning numerous fork articles like Operation Sarindar or adding fork content to already existing articles like Nuclear terrorism. Nuclear terrorism talk page alone deserves reading to learn about Biophys straightforward tactics.  Common pattern of behaviour
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per Biophys and per previous AfD '''"keep"''' rational by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=284938478&oldid=284912565 myself and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=284944173&oldid=284942437 others, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=284946778&oldid=284944173 here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=284985784&oldid=284946778 here and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=285079585&oldid=285051744 here. In other words, it is a reasonable sub-article split from an overly long main article, per . If there are POV issues, this can be rectified in this sub-article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS)

Comment: As per policy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS)