Deletion of Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden (2nd nomination)

Comment: I don't think it's a POV article, but rather a sourced article |about a POV.  There's a distinction there, and I don't see any reason to delete or merge the article, especially when the merge target is large enough as is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SUBPOV)

Comment: to Location of Osama bin Laden#Pakistan role in hiding. This is just a POV fork of the content there and this is a reasonable location to relocate anything salvageable. That title alone shows this to be an article that is standing on thin grounds as being notable in and of itself as the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch|Manual of Style recommends avoiding the word 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ALLEGED)

Comment: The article is precisely described by it's title - a smokescreen of allegations. There has been no formal evidence officially proving the allegations, neither has the United States formally conveyed to Pakistan that this is the case. This is  and . The article is redundant, there is nothing here that cannot be discussed at the Death of Osama bin Laden article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:FORK)

Comment: Why is this article nominated for the ''2nd time''? Article could be improved. But clearly it is not about a Fringe theory and has substantial coverage in mainstream sources and easily verified. it's been discussed in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322804576303553679080310.html The Wall Street Journal, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13359030 BBC News, http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/us.pakistan.relations/index.html?iref=allsearch CNN, and http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/world/asia/07policy.html?ref=osamabinladen the New York Times. Barack Obama|President Obama discussed this on ''60 Minutes'' earlierhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20060530-10391709.html?tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox. This is ''neither'' a speculative theory nor a baseless conspiracy theory. This article is about well-sourced allegations and that's what it is doing. There have been ''multiple'' accusations by various nations against Pakistan about this exact topic (as demonstrated by the article itself). And this meets  also. "''allegations''" — well-verified, note-worthy and paramount allegations made by some ''very notable political figures'', yes. |Not all POV is unacceptable, Criticism of Facebook or Criticism of the Israeli government or Criticism of religion all reflect a POV but they are existing, as they should be. If there are other problems, they are |surmountable anyway. This AfD is needless and a POV itself. Read what I wrote #mrt|below
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SUBPOV||WP:PROBLEM)