Deletion of Views on Legitimacy of Israel

Comment: A topic merely meeting  is not enough to merit an article. Under |Wikipedia:No original research, "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Primary sources are sources that originate written material and secondary sources are sources that summarize the original material provided by primary sources. This article is nothing more than a compilation of sources that originate written material - a compilation of analytic or evaluative claims published by a primary source contrary to Wikipedia:No original research policy. Also, where does this end? Is the next Wikipedia article Opinions on views on legitimacy of Israel? Views on legitimacy of the United States? The topic assumes that Israel is not authorized by the law or is not in accordance with accepted standards or rules, without providing sufficient reliable sources in the article to support such an assumption. This article also is a  of articles that already adequately cover this topic, such as Anti-Zionism and, given is unsupported premise that Israel is not legitimate, the article can never be written to describe the topic from a neutral point of view as required by OTADVOCATE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SECONDARY||WP:POVFORK||WP:NOTADVOCATE)

Comment: to Opinions of Legitimacy of the State of Israel. Regardless of my |personal views on the subject, the question of an AfD is whether the subject is notable. Given the breadth of content regarding the "Legitimacy of the State of Isreal" (both pro-Israel and anti-Israel) I would say that the subject is clearly |notable per . Does this type of subject full of POV, NEU, & WEIGHT related minefields? Yes. So are articles about any number of politically controversial subjects, but just because it is politically controversial subject doesn't mean that it should exist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NEU||WP:NN||WP:GNG)