" 

 *Read what, exactly? The article on criticism that has nothing whatsoever to do with the content on controversy that you removed, which is not criticism: it is a factual recounting of the controversy surrounding this very public figure, just as many biographies and other similar articles have similar sections. Controversy is not criticism, and there is nothing on this talk page that has anything to do with the controversy being cited. Also I didn't add the content, I merely cleaned it up, removing that which was not appropriate, fixed formatting, verified the content sources, and added references where needed. Suggestion: try doing some reading yourself, such as the edit history, and of the content you are removing, before suggesting others do so. Please read WP:EW, and WP:BLP, particularly the section WP:WELLKNOWN, which states,  

 :In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. 
 ::*Example: ""John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe."" Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: ""John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."" 
 ::*Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did. 

 :Per the above guideline, I am undoing your deletion: the content in question is reliably sourced, factual, and relevant, and there was no justification for removing it, as it fits within policy. Please do not remove it again without providing evidence of strong consensus against from multiple unbiased editors and an admin, and be sure to cite the relevant Wikipedia policies you are adhering to that justify deleting such content. If you feel you can improve it, then Be Bold and do so, but that does not include removing valid, properly sourced, and relevant material.  "