Deletion of Jewish boycott of the Western Wall

Comment: as  of Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar and the State of Israel. Also a clearly mistitled article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: per nom and it is  of Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar and the State of Israel
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: Despite all the noise above, there are actually very few relevant arguments presented. (1) Problems with the title have never been valid reasons for deletion; the correct approach is to think of a better title and open a move discussion. (2) The argument that the opinion is only that of a small group is also irrelevant.  We have ''tons'' of articles on small groups and fringe opinions.  What you have to do is make a case for |non-notability using the guidelines there. The guideline  might help, though it's mostly concerned with fringe theories rather than fringe opinions. Sandstein is correct to be wary of opinions expressed with particular vehemence. I'm not sure so I'm not voting
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: as per , , and , also as per arguments made by Nom.  Before I get to the reasons for deletion, I want to ask editors to consider how it is  possible for an editor acting in good faith to research an entire article on the Western Wall featuring a sentence of such profound ignorance as: "The Western Wall... forms the only surviving section of the retaining wall of the Second Temple in Jerusalem." (Four visible retaining walls survive from the Second Temple: Eastern, Southern, Northern, and Western
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NOR||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: This week a major change in the way space is allocated for prayer near the Western Wall was announced - there were headlines and news coverage worldwide - but I cannot find a single mention of this alleged "boycott" in any of those stories (I ran a series of word searches), probably because This article is a blatant violation of  
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)