Deletion of Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination)

Comment: I have moved nomination to the correct title (it is the seventh nomination), and nominated the redirect for deletion and recreate protection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAllegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_.282nd_nomination.29_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAllegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_.287th_nomination.29 here. This is to fix the technical clusterfucks around this nomination. I am operating under , and hope this is not controversial in anyway. Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: and enough no-consensus closes. It is unlikely this issue will ever be resolved. as long as the closing admin closes this debate as "no consensus." The last few nominations closed that way and that has created major conflicts which lead this issue to go to arbcom. My opinion is this article is an insult to Israel and zionism, and should not be kept. Sure, it may be notable, but sourced insults (even from scholars) are still insults. Notability alone does not mean a topic is encyclopediac. But even th notability is questionable, as most of the material is original primary sources claiming to prove some form of notability. The criticism section is the largest section, but most of the critics do not use the term "apartheid" in their rebuddle; instead they explain how the anti-israel, anti-zionists are wrong in their statements. If the primary sources were removed, there would probably be only 3 paragraphs remaining, which could easily be merged into Human rights in Israel, where the topic would at least be given all the weight it diserves, and would at least be presented in a neutral manner. Garbage like this should not be kept, as it is proof that  does not apply to afd debates. As for Malik Shabazz's comment, why go through this again? The answer is because we haven't resolved the previous issues. The article is still an anti-Israel, anti-zionist POV fork, and attempts to move this article to a more neutral title have all failed so far
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Nominators comment is not supported by the wealth of notable, reliable, and verifiable sources that provide complete encyclopedic value to the topic in itself. Deletionism around this article seems to always be based around POV  ideological reasons: since the topic includes politics contrary to the existence of Israel, or against policies put in practice, historically or currently. The nominator obviously has not read the article (which needs work) and is obviously having a knee-jerk reaction to the existence of the topic, because the article as it  stands doesn't support his nomination comments: In fact, the bulk of the sourced material that uses the analogy is from self-described Zionist sources or sources that are sympathetic or support the existence of Israel, but think certain policies are harmful to a peace process and in fact contribute to increased insecurity in Israel itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BATTLE)