Deletion of Criticism of Nortel

Comment: Deletion requests like this are attempting to solve a problem that does not exist.  ''Of course'' the only purpose of an article named "Criticism of ''X''" is to criticize ''X''.  ''Of course'' it's one-sided and biased - any critical topic article is inherently so.  A section of , '''Articles whose subject is a POV''', specifically allows articles like this, and clearly states, ''"Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view."''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV  We have myriads of POV articles like this, including many, many other criticism articles.  Should all of them be deleted?  There is nothing wrong or unencyclopedic about legitimate well-sourced critical material.  "Encyclopedic" does not mean ''"would be in a traditional published-on-paper encyclopedia"''... traditional encyclopedias are limited in space in a way that we aren't, and so naturally have more restrictive criteria for inclusion.I, for one, stumbled onto this article and found it to be informative. The article could be improved, to be sure, but, since it's apparently accurate and properly sourced information, I see no harm for ''the reader''. For example, if a reader is thinking about buying Nortel stock, or considering a position of employment there, or writing an article or report about the company, he or she might go to Nortel, see the link to this criticism article (ideally there would be a summary at the main article), and this information could prove to be useful.  Again, I see only benefit, and no harm, ''for our readers'', in keeping it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: There isn't too much material here, so I think it could easily be merged into Nortel without a loss of information. However, the company and situations surrounding it have attracted a considerable share of criticism in the past, so I think that this article does have validity; I don't think that it's a simple 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: the purpose of the article is blatantly to criticize the company and not to provide encyclopedic content:   Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)