Deletion of German Reform movement (Judaism)

Comment: A Reform Judaism (United States) article has also been created. There have been a number of recent disputes, including whether to use the terminology "Reform Judaism" or "Progressive Judaism". My general impression is that the new article topics satisfy |notability and |verifiability criteria, so there is no inherent policy problem with dividing the articles up this way, although there are certainly good arguments for a different approach. Once again, I believe that fD may not be the best place to resolve these differences. Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:A)

Comment: I think we should apply  here and not assume the article was created specifically for a |POVFORK. The Reform/Progressive movement in Judaism began in Germany in the 19th century and so far as standard Wikipedia notability criteria are concerned, 19th Century German Reform movement is by itself easily a notable enough topic to merit a stand-alone article as part of a series of articles on Reform/Progressive Judaism. I would imagine that as the encyclopedia grows various subsections of the Reform Judaism article would inevitably grow large enough to be split off into their own articles.  I'm not sure it's the role of the AfD process to supply input on whether or not now is the right time for article splitting, which is a natural Wikipedia process. If there were a strong  one way or the other that would be a factor but I don't believe this is a case of an isolated editor violating a clear consensus. I would give the article a few days for construction to settle down and then see what the situation is. If it is indeed a blatant  (for example, if it appears to be an essay style or all previous points of view but one have been removed) we can deal with it then, and if it should be merged back in for other reasons we can deal with that as well. I would suggest |dispute resolution to help the editors involved resolve their differences on how best to proceed. Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:POVFORK||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:POVFORK||WP:DR)

Comment: per . Insufficient secondary sources cited
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)