Deletion of Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)

Comment: This topic is notable there are plenty of sources that discuss those theories so its meet  and .For example http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=235919
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:DIVERSE)

Comment: I think there's enough sourcing that ties events together to justify keeping the article, at least per the standard of  or a liberal reading of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:GNG)

Comment: I can see the  concerns, but all-in-all, is reasonably sourced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: This article was already submitted for AfD, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animal_conspiracy_theories_involving_Israel survived by a landslide.  Consensus was to keep.  The article's subject is notable and covered by a variety of RS outlets, and includes significant information, and there have been many reactions by various people to this info.  The entire topic is well sourced to RS outlets and is verifable, which includes Huffington Post, BBC, Washington Post, etc.  Some people oppose it here simply because of , or are upset that the previous AfD's consensus was to keep, but it's a pretty far-fetched claim to say that an article that numerous admins voted to keep an AfD is to "demean Arabs."  I don't think any of us are mind-readers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)