Deletion of Israeli occupation of the West Bank

Comment: or '''Userfy ''' Per  .The sources were cherry-picked to presented one sided  essay.You can see at the talk page the discussion about serious problems that this article have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Brief_review_of_sources -- —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:POV)

Comment: This is without question a notable topic that has been the subject of untold hundreds of thousands (at a minimum) of sources, be they works of scholarship, news stories, textbooks, general interest reference works, primary accounts, primary government statements, and more aside. Indeed, it is one of the most globally significant topics of recent history and contemporary significance in existence and when looking into this inquiry I was a little blown away to learn that the article has only existed since 2018.  As to the POVFORK question, I don't think it holds up as an analysis when applied to any of the target articles mentioned by the OP; the topic of the article title is a discrete one and one which there is ample sourcing to discuss own its own unique terms with the title definetly being the obvious  used in sources by and large, if we look at the entire universe of  on the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:COMMONNAME||WP:RS)

Comment: and obviously so. You can't have a POVFORK from multiple pages, and beyond that, this article is currently at 120 kB of readable prose. It cant be merged in to its parent article (which is West Bank). The personal attacks in the nomination notwithstanding, this is an obviously notable topic, with sources very specifically treating this as its own topic. The idea that because it deals with a topic that the nominator finds uncomfortable means it is propaganda is kind of funny but not at all important. One of the more obvious keeps in the history of AFD. An obviously notable topic, one which currently has 295 reliable sources cited dealing explicitly with this topic. The most basic  search, if that were even necessary given the number of sources already cited, https://www.google.com/search?q=israeli+occupation+%22west+bank%22&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS561US561&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDuLS6k6XgAhUDuRoKHajFCZkQ_AUIFCgB&biw=1920&bih=938 would disabuse somebody of the notion this is not its own topic. Some users dont want the Israeli occupation covered. That is a position that is fine for an individual to hold. It is however not one that is relevant to the goal of building an encyclopedia. As far as the patently silly claim that the sources are "cherry-picked" or "POV", please, look at the source list. Among the 295 sources, 28 are published by some university press. 72 of them are from peer-reviewed journals. The rest mostly from top-class publishers like Routledge, Brill, and Taylor & Francis. This article is sourced to the very best available reliable sources. Some people just dont like what the sources say
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)