Deletion of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination)

Comment: If you recommend to delete, please also comment on the quality of the article's content. Considering that the split seems perfectly valid under ,  we can't just delete the entire article because of its arguably controversial title if most of its content is well-sourced and not quite inappropriate. See Wikipedia:POVFORK#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles|Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles, Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)#Political beliefs and public perception
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)

Comment: Despite the multiple accusations in POV forking, no one actually presented any evidence that the article's content is biased or factually incorrect. There were some concerns about the name, but  clearly states that we have no consensus on whether all "Criticism of..." articles are necessarily POV forks. It's most certainly not the only "Criticism of..." article on WP, and I really don't believe that we can just delete the entire page because of its title—particularly with much more sensible alternatives like renaming. As I said before, the article's existence is valid under , which specifically suggests that ''if a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SPLIT)

Comment: I'm sort of sad to endorse deleting this given that work has gone into making it better, but I'd really rather see it go than stay.  My main objection to this, and all criticism pages, is that they are at best collections of troll-magnet |random facts and can be far, far worse.  I've said my piece on the article's talk page, and some of those concerns have been addressed, but I still think the concept for this article is, by nature, inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  I do believe that this is something that will have to be addressed with a formal version of  rather than on a case by case level, and my primary objection is that it is a criticism article, not to any of the specific current content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA||WP:CRIT)

Comment: I haven't looked at it closely but it's not necessarily a |POV fork. From : ''If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out.'' The main article is 26KB long. This article is 32KB long
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SPLIT)

Comment: It's tricky, but I don't think this is a POV fork, mostly on the grounds that the subject matter can (admittedly with difficulty) be covered in a NPOV way the same way it can be in an article. In fact, I think a good portion of the article already covers the criticisms decently: saying exactly what each side stated while generally avoiding most |words to avoid and withholding |synthesized judgment. You could  go through any of the material within this article and see that it would also fit in the main Bill O'Reilly article, so it's really more of a plain-old split than a POV fork. POV forks are only articles composed of material that is so inherently POV'd that it couldn't withstand to be within the main article. Perhaps you are worried that readers will get the idea that Bill O'Reilly is highly controversial and heavily criticized, but that is verifiably and undeniably true. I am ambivalent about the name-change idea to "Controversy of", but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WTA||WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: as a POV fork. All good intentions aside, "Criticism of" articles have particular problems in this area -- while in a perfect world I can see ways to make them work, it's more important that the community not have double standards for politically controversial articles (I refer to the speedy deletion as an |attack page of Criticism of Barack Obama some few months past
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATP)