Deletion of Criticism of Vladimir Putin

Comment: as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Serious question here. Given that many people believe Criticism of Vladimir Putin is entirely appropriate, are those same people who want to keep this article, going to hold the same opinion '''when''' I start Support of Vladimir Putin/Praise of Vladimir Putin? It won't be a  article in the slightest, because one need only read Vladimir_Putin#Support to learn that he once held approval ratings of 81%, the highest amongst any world leader, and hasn't fallen below 65% since November 1999. With 9 years of sky high approval ratings, there is going to be a lot of information in media, books, scholarly journals (scholarly journals is something which isn't present in any of the Putin series of articles, what does that indicate?), etc with which to build a well-written, entirely referenced ''Praise'' article. People are getting caught up on , whereas  is the relevant policy in play here. But let us for a moment concentrate on  only. Editors have stated that there is nothing in  which forbids such a criticism article, well I challenge that there is nothing in  that forbids a ''praise'' article. If "''"Criticisms" articles are a valid way of presenting alternative notable viewpoints published in reliable, verifiable sources.''", why could this not also apply to ''Praise'' articles, particularly with this particular person, because it could be argued that the ''alternative'' view is the ''praise''.  doesn't forbid it. One could also argue, ''any attempt to stifle (sourced) praise, on the basis that it is indeed praise, is a form of censorship, and Wikipedia is .''. I don't expect anyone to answer this question, but have raised it to hopefully make people think. But, if you look at , and in particular Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming, doesn't an article entitled '''Criticism of PersonA''' smack of POV right at the get go? Think about it, how does one achieve NPOV when the stage is set from its very title? What exactly is the point of  when we have 150+ articles which have, and are allowed to have, such POV titles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:POVFORK||WP:NPOV||WP:POVFORK||WP:POVFORK||WP:POVFORK||WP:POVFORK||WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:NPOV||WP:NPOV)