Deletion of Al Gore controversies

Comment: per nominater and others. Controversy pages and sections are almost always bad ideas, as they tend to become troll magnets, and dumping grounds for negative material (of dubios relevance) about the subject. ''Relevant'' material should be merged into the main article, and preferably not into section called "Controversies" or "Criticisms," and definitely in a manner that doesn't give anything undue |weight
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: after '''dismantling, disbursing, and integrating''' legitimate contents into other Al Gore-related articles.  I'm the editor who's done this for the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani articles, and there are a few misconceptions in the comments above.  In this process, legitimate material is not removed from Wikipedia, it's just moved to the correct context, and thereby put into conformance with , ontent forking, and riticism.  Lengthening already lengthy main articles is always a concern, but material can often be moved to subarticles or main article footnotes instead.  In this case, "Fund raising" can be added into the main article; it's a legitimate ethical/legal issue that did damage to his career, and "no controlling legal authority" was a damaging phrase that should be mentioned there.  The "created the Internet" material can go into the Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology subarticle (a lot of it already is) and referenced from the main article.  "Love Canal" probably belongs as a brief reference in the main article, augmented by a main article footnote that tells the story of the whole mix-up (the Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton articles make good use of footnotes this way).  "Use of energy in home" I'm not sure about, I'd have to look closer at all the Al Gore articles; it's always possible to create a new article dedicated to a particular controversy, if it is merited (Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy and Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik were created during dismantling this way).  "Meat-eating and Climate Change" is really a policy disagreement, not a controversy; it can go into the An Inconvenient Truth article, which it pertains to (actually, I think the same material is already there).   Also, a '''redirect-with-protect''' is an alternative to delete as a final disposition, as that allows everyone to see what the contents were (and that they were fairly disbursed) without being able to revert the article back into existence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:C||WP:C)

Comment: My own personal opinion is that we should be more liberal with wikipedia content, however, I have watched many biography pages being trimmed of criticism and criticism sections citing  & riticism. In light of that activity, this page sticks out
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:C)