Deletion of Nina Rosenwald

Comment: No {{U|Jeff5102}}, it is not just you.  Other people recognize that a perceived POV problem is a bad reason to suggest deletion.  I did a google search, contrary to what the nomination seems to assert, there are references.  Nomination seems to be written from a serious misconception as to the meaning of .  Nomination complains that the references are biased.  This is why we have policies and guidelines to help us write neutral articles that are based on RS that weren't written to comply with wikipedia neutrality in mind.  Practically no RS aims to measure up to wikipedia neutrality standards.  So we attribute opinions to those who offered them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: A -problem is no reason to delete an article. The best way to solve a NPOV-problem is by solving the NPOV-problem. Options are editing, or just reverting to an older version in which there is less emphasis on the "smear piece written by a partisan author." Like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Rosenwald&oldid=574537205 this old version, for example. Best regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)