Deletion of Blame Israel first

Comment: It is not even close to .|I did not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I provided a few reliable sources that do explicitly state the conclusion: http://books.google.com/books?id=j32FYDE84DAC&pg=PA179; http://books.google.com/books?id=-mmHaebdp-8C&pg=PA222;http://books.google.com/books?id=hmDwMHlrDmEC&pg=PA292&dq=%22Blame+Israel+first%22&hl=en&ei=uLxATbXBNY6-sQO53oj9Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Blame%20Israel%20first%22&f=false, and I could easily provide a dozen more
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (:WP:SYNTH||:WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per . The article topic itself is irretrievably incompatible with the requirement to provide coverage in a manner that meets 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NPOV)

Comment: this doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. It advances a particular point of view and I think that is contrary to the |established principle of neutrality. I agree that it has been concocted from various sources in an attempt to present an argument which none of those sources actually support when considered on their merits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Looks to be  shit list of anyone who has ever blamed isreal for anything. No source appear to directly discuss the over arching Idea that this is a "meme." I am sure that using the mehtod employed here Blame America and Blame France would be doable. I see nothing here to suggest that "Blame Isreal" is in fact a meme rather than an action of blaming Israel
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Perceptive, and with more than an element of truth to it, but clearly violates ,  etc. Sadly, I don't see any way a neutral article on the subject ''could'' be written. A more general article about the use of 'external enemies' to deflect internal criticism might work, if  is available, but this is just too specific, and likely to degenerate into yet another edit-war
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SYN||WP:RS)

Comment: as exactly the kind of  POV-pushing that Wikipedia doesn't need in this sensitive topic area
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per , NPOV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: Very well referenced and notable, no violation of  at all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: given the failure to allow this article to develop by the nominator and that the topic meets  and . Blame Israel can be broken down to (i) reliable sources describing acts of blaming Israel and (ii) reliable sources describing the topic "blame Israel." This was the same issue in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Jesus theft. If you look at the source table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uzma_Gamal/Test_page here, you can see a division between the two approaches used by the reliable sources. The column "Article Title cont." allows you to sort the news article titles to see what Israel in fact is being blamed for (over time) and to make it easier to locate reliable sources describing the topic "blame Israel." The topic meets meets  and  and any issues can be resolved over time, given an appropriate amount of time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOT||WP:GNG||WP:NOT)

Comment: It's |synthesis and this is evident in the heading "Intellectuals analyzing "Blame Israel" mentality". The article is comprised entirely (excepting the short lede) of quotes by people and these quotes are being used as ''examples'' of this meme. Does any source do '''more than imply, but ''actually say "there is a mentality of blame Israel''''' anywhere? Is there any substantial ''analysis'', not just quotes, of a specifically named "blame Israel" viewpoint? Here are some sources at random: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-un-council-rushing-to-blame-israel-for-gaza-flotilla-deaths-1.293735 Haaretz, http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/egyptian-experts-blame-israel-and-mubarak-nile-basin-dispute Al-Masry Al-Youm, http://books.google.com/books?id=j32FYDE84DAC&pg=PA179#v=onepage&q&f=false ''A Match Made in Heaven''. None of them seem to do anything but provide quotes. Who interprets these quotes? Wikipedia's editors. Ergo, ''synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:synthesis)

Comment: this is why we have , so we can't publish articles about topics that aren't already established subjects. Just because a few commentators have used this style of argument doesn't mean its a notable topic for an encyclopedia.  The article can be nothing more than original research without neutral parties discussing "blaming Israel" as a phenomenon. The article also smells pretty strongly POV. It might work as an academic blog posting or as a published essay, but not as an encyclopedia article. Also, per fetchcomms and Bali ultimate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Partisan hackery by someone that should have been removed from the topic area long, long ago.  A Wikipedia article is not a platform from which to whine about how one |personally feels about the treatment of Jews, supporting one's sentiments by |stitching together a hode-podge of quotes of others.  Srsly, go blog about it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per . Yet another POV-pushing article we do not need
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Topic is great for a blog, but is totally unsuitable for an encyclopedic article (try again when a couple of |secondary sources have written substantial works on the article topic). At the moment, the article violates  since it is just a list of random comments remotely connected with blaming Israel
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: it doesn't even seem clear what the topic of this article is. I think it's meant to be about an argument or perception that Israel is unfairly singled out for criticism; but it seems to have broadened to cover criticism of Israel generally. We already have an article on that, Criticism of Israel, and this one feels like a . Perhaps it could be rewritten to focus more tightly on this specific argument, but the topic is so inherently contentious that I doubt a NPOV article on the subject could really be written
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)