Deletion of Allegations of Israeli espionage operation 2000–2001

Comment: possibly '''rename''' to something more appropriate. And, ugh, not this again. Why do we have to keep dragging stuff like this back up? The notability of this article is based upon the event that Israeli students were arrested for being part of this "alleged spy ring" and then deported. It doesn't matter if the spy ring is alleged or not, since this article is about the events surrounding the government's reaction to it. This article is not a content fork of Art student scam, it is a |split from it, so as to not give undue weight for the fairly extensive amount of information on this subject in that higher-level article. I agree with the point on the title. I personally feel that it should just be Israeli Espionage Operation, but I suppose that wouldn't be NPOV. Either way, if you look at sources like http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation this, it is quite clear that the events surrounding this sort of scam/spying are notable and were reported on in numerous news outlets
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)

Comment: as  and '''speedy delete''' as a wp:csd#g4|g4
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Referenced, and satisfies |notability as well as other relevant guidelines and policies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Essentially the present article already had an AfD, which can be found under rticles for deletion/Israeli art student scam. I managed to prevent a "delete" outcome of that discussion by rewriting the article so as to give the conspiracy nonsense its proper (i.e. little) weight. Some conspiracy fans were not happy with this and made the article unbalanced again. The result was the second Afd, under rticles for deletion/Art student scam, which again ended with "no consensus" concerning further existence of that article, but with a consensus that the conspiracy cruft must be reduced again. Instead discussion of the conspiracy theory was moved to the present new article. Although the case is somewhat complicated, this action had many of the characteristics of a POV fork and comes close to recreation of a deleted article. It's time now for a clear "delete" outcome as an unambiguous precedent, so that in the future this nonsense can be dealt with without further huge discussions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:A)