Deletion of Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League

Comment: back to the main article. Unlike what most editors have stated here in reality the criticism section isn't long or large or overbearing or whatever else you want to call it. It's certainly not large enough to stand up as an article on its own. The article was not in need of a content fork. While the criticism section was a little large, it could have easily been trimmed back. It does not need a separate article. The split, which was not discussed, has changed the editorial bias of the main article by providing one point of view, while the other "sub-article" provides another. We should not be splitting articles into positive sides and negative sides and I see no consensus to say otherwise. Both  and  provide valuable insight on why this should not have occurred. If AfD results in a keep, we've lost the original contribution history which is in violation of  and needs to be corrected immediately following the guidelines on that page
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:STRUCTURE||WP:POVFORK||WP:SPLIT)

Comment: In looking at the pre-fork article, about one-third was made up of criticism. This is exactly when to fork, when a section starts to overwhelm the rest of the article. If this does end up being merged back in, the section should be drastically pruned to provide some measure of content balance without  issues
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: all  material to the main Anti-Defamation League article, otherwise this is a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Content forking and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOTOPINION)

Comment: This entire forum is misconceived because issues surrounding mergers and POV forks belong at article talkpage, not afd. However, I would like to state for the record that it was a good idea to split the article. As pointed out be numeroud editors above, the criticism section was taking up a disproportionate amount of the article and thus violated 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)