Deletion of Judaization of Jerusalem

Comment: This article has been drastically rewritten in the last 24 hours or so since the nomination, so as the nominator I feel that I should comment on this. I agree that the  problem has diminished, since the sources improved and opinions are now attributed, even if they are somewhat cherry-picked. Still, I think the  remains, and much of the valuable information now in this article should be merged into other Jerusalem-related articles, where it can be discussed more neutrally and in a more comprehensive context
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: This is a clear , the material belongs in other articles (i.e., Demographics of Jerusalem
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: The  sticks out
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Definitely not : http://books.google.ca/books?q=%22judaization+of+jerusalem%22&um=1&as_brr=0 360 google book hits for "Judaization of Jerusalem", http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&q=%22judaisation%20of%20jerusalem%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp 72 google book hits for "Judaisation of Jerusalem", http://books.google.ca/books?um=1&q=%22judaizing+jerusalem%22&btnG=Search+Books 91 hits for "Judaizing Jerusalem" and  http://books.google.ca/books?um=1&as_brr=0&q=%22judaising+jerusalem%22&btnG=Search+Books 18 hits for "Judaising Jerusalem". While there may be some SYNTH in the article as currently constructed (not sure, but I am assuming good faith regarding Nudve's claim in the nomination), the topic itself is notable in its own right and a subject of scholarly discussion. It is also not a POVFORK, since while it discusses a process and policy arguably related to the articles Nudve lists, it is as evidenced above, a subject in its own right. Controversy over the use of the term can be discussed in the article itself. Those concerned by a lack of balance are encouraged to add the views of those who take issue with the term to the article itself, rather than lobbying for its deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: switched from delete) Particularly motivated to switch by the Haaretz sources. I still think there are significant POV issues within the article, but they can be allayed, but no longer believe it's undue or a POV fork. I still caution users to remember that this isn't a battleground. Sadly, not one dead innocent from either side will be brought back to life, whatever Wikipedia says about anything. I heartily, if immodestly recommend perusing  and cheerfully (and still immodestly) recommend . Although, oddly, this AFD has been (so far) remarkably chilled
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:BALANCE||WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY)