Deletion of Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)

Comment: Agree . Also seems to fall afoul of otability. Can anyone point to a single source that actually covers "Zoological conspiracy theories" generally, rather than individual examples of said theories
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:N)

Comment: Pretty obviously a |synthesis of individual incidents into a made-up phenomenon. There are no reliable sources either in the article or offered in this discussion that treat this as a topic in itself. I thought we had grown out of exploding whales, but clearly, judging by the continued existence of that article and the support that this one has attracted, we haven't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:synthesis)

Comment: Non-notable individual events (per  - these lack persistent significant coverage or lasting effects) do not dodge the notability requirements by being glued together
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: the article is a little bit |synth'd-together but I think without it, editors might find enough sources to justify Arab-Israeli Shark Conspiracy and Arab-Israeli Rat Conspiracy and the like, as stand-alone articles. I would prefer to see them grouped together than separated into individual articles (which would no doubt result in a primary List of Arab-Israeli Zoological Conspiracies article anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: This article contravenes a veritable alphabet soup of Wikipedia policies: , otability, and most of all . Although the article might serve as an example par excellence of the last one. Oh, and it's pretty clearly breaking POV too, as it appears to cast one strange and fairly silly event as evidence of some deep insanity among Arabs that means they think animals are more often than not controlled by Mossad
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:N||WP:COATRACK||WP:NPOV)

Comment: The topic on its own is well known, notable, and sourced. Almost every single source utilized in the article mentions other conspiracy theories, which they deem as a trend.  This entire nomination smacks of . This article does appear to demean Arabs/Muslims (assuming the theories are untrue) but this is irrelevant policy-wise even if this was the intention. There are far more articles and editors with the sole intention of demeaning Jews but I don't see anyone getting all anxious about those articles or nominating them for deletion. Nothing new I suppose
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)