Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bend, Not Break
A couple of notes: First, I marked the pages Hell in a Bucket mentioned as "attack", because they were laying a foundation for an attack. All the statements in the the pages were unverifiable  with no English language citation, and carefully crafted to be contradictory with what Ping Fu wrote in Bend, Not Break. Second, I'm "the other editor", and I did not assume that "critic" equals out to "reviewer". Tokyogirl79, please assume good intentions on my part. Accusing me of cherrypicking or  is not very civil. On the article in question:  it has big problems with accuracy, POV, and verifiability. The synopsis is completely uncited, and includes at least 5 inexcusable errors. While the article does cite  reviews, it also cites sources where the writers direct their criticism to Ping Fu personally, rather than to the book. The article casually conflates the book Bend, Not Break with Ping Fu personally, in a way that appears will be very difficult to fix, and even more difficult to maintain. Finally, I object to the process by which this article has been created.  says "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article." This one is worse -- it is both consensus-dodging and protection-dodging. It was created by a user with a new , who was  to get around the protection put on the Ping Fu page just yesterday. I assume good faith on the part of the nominator, that she did not know this background, but the article should have been redirected to start with. As of now, the best option is still to redirect it. But, short of doing that, it should be protected, and stubbed
— User:VanHarrisArt, 15:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:POVFORK||WP:SPA||WP:point||WP:gaming the system (Wikipedia:No original research)