Deletion of After Saturday Comes Sunday (2nd nomination)

Comment: Anyone, as User Amr ibn Kulthoum in this case, who uses highly-charged pejorative words and phrases like "racist state of Israel"; "the imagination of pro-Israeli political writers"; "writers of the same political affiliations and agenda"; "Unlike the West, which is just learning about so-called multiculturalism now" should actually be banned or blocked for inciting  and violating , period, and should certainly NOT be nominating articles for deletion based on an unashamedly biased, openly hostile and alarmingly narrow POV. Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BATTLEGROUND||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Nothing has changed since the last AfD to reduce the notability of this topic. The same editor has nominated it a second time, so it seems to be a |disruptive maneuver
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: It's a term that appears to have some history to it and there do appear to be several reliable secondary sources to justify a notability claim. It's evidently not a . No point in rehashing the previous AfD, which was procedurally problematic (and the ghits argument is not in itself a good one). The religion of the people writing the sources is not of much consequence so long as it's published in a reliable source (and/or that person is a reliable source). If you feel the article is imbalanced because of it, then fix it, but that's not a reason to delete. --&mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: The phrase does seem to have some traction, unfortunately not always as in the form of the title of this article. It seems to be used more as a handy way of presenting some sort of domino theory of Islamic fundamentalism than as a standalone concept on its own (cf. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23611138). Presenting it as an article is a sort of  - that this 'first jews then christians' domino theory is a goal of Hamas, Islamic fundamentalists, etc. This shouldn't be a separate article. In its current state, I'd say delete. The only meaningful reference is the Khayyat one and he is barely contextualizing it (and attaches it to Coptic Christians rather than Muslims). If more references like the one I link to above exist, then a mention somewhere may be warranted (like "Islamic fundamentalists/Hamas sometimes use the slogan "After .....". Do we really need to say more than that anywhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Looking at the first time this was nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday in 2011, have to agree with this argument by {{ping|Raul654}} that resulted in a quick keep result: "The stated deletion reasons are flatly false. The term gets http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1486&bih=765&q=%22after+saturday+comes+sunday%22&oq=%22after+saturday+comes+sunday%22&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=539l2928l0l3075l29l16l0l0l0l0l197l2267l2.14l16l0 38,000 hits now 78,000+ on the internet and http://www.google.com/search?q=%22after+saturday+comes+sunday%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 74 hits on Google books now 108, hence it is notable. Every single statement in the article is referenced to a reliable source - there's nothing there that is original research. This whole nomination is basically drive-by AFD tagging because the nominatior |doesn't like the subject matter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)