Deletion of Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood

Comment: Can anyone here describe to me exactly how  applies to this article? My interpretation of the essay is that a coatrack is an article created under false pretexts. I see nothing of the sort here. The essay states that a coatrack makes reference to a ''"nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject.'' This article openly declares that it's about controversies related to Jewish prevalence in Hollywood, and goes on to describe exactly that, with no tangent that I can see
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: This could not sustain a neutral and objective article, and gives |undue weight to fringe theories. Special:Contributions/84.92.117.93|84.92.117.93
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Possibly rename.  Certainly sharpen the focus to be more on the general issue, rather than specific cases.  IMO this kind of touchy cultural assumption is something highly worthy of rigorous assessment and analysis; as the saying goes, "sunlight is the best antiseptic".  In particular, I think the WP process on a high traffic page actually works quite well (usually) to evolve a reasonably well-balanced well-researched article that complies with WP:NPOV; and that is something that can be a real asset to bring into existence on the net, ''even more so'' the more potentially full of poison a subject is, like this one, and therefore the more it ''needs'' a sane, well-balanced NPOV treatment to let the real truth emerge.  As regards policy, I have not the slightest doubt that reputable academic secondary sources exist in this area, so I am quite certain but that the topic satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: the essay-like approach to the subject is unencyclopedic to begin with, and reads as a piece of  /  in the form of an opinion piece.  It is also based on a premise (that Jews control Hollywood and that the matter gives rise to controversies) that is itself rather suspect.  This premise, along with its sisters - Jews control world banking, Jews control American policy, etc. has often been described as an antisemitic one.  We can't afford to organize the encyclopedia around opinions in this way.  If there are issues about Jews in hollywood, then an article based on the neutral subject, e.g. Jews in the entertainment industry, would have to pass muster as a notable, encyclopedic subject, not a derivative article on ''problems with'' Jews in the entertainment industry.  I'm also concerned by the article creator's similarly biased Misuse of antisemitic accusations, and coverage of the book An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood.  This looks like a troubling POV campaign
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Anti-semitic oatrack using riginal research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C||WP:O)

Comment: Break up this article into several topics. I think there is an attempt to cover several topics with this article. I don't feel I have studied some of the issues enough to know how to cover some aspects of this article in Wikipedia. For example; "Control" is a very controversial term. But media bias and lobbying are covered by several articles. Biases are common. Most people in the media and lobbying groups have some kind of bias. Some people are better than others at putting aside their biases and covering issues objectively. Same as at Wikipedia. Wikipedia could be claimed to be part of the mass media at this point. Covering religion and religious issues in the media and Wikipedia is difficult. All kinds of pressures, lobbying, spin, politics, and calculation are involved. Critical viewpoints of religion and religious influence and must be covered in a careful, balanced  way to avoid problems. Some articles and article sections that are relevant in various ways follow below. Some could incorporate some of the info directly. Some are examples of Wikipedia coverage of various forms of claimed media biases, religious lobbying, and the intermixing of media, religion and  politics
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)