Deletion of Palestinian incitement

Comment: this article is one sided and is a serious violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCATE)

Comment: The topic is POV. That aside, it fails  as far as encyclopedic concepts go. Examples cobbled together do not support the notion that this is a real concept with serious treatment in reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This subject clearly merits its own page, given the copious references that address the issue directly - and those have barely scratched the surface. I would implore editors not to give into  exhibited by some editors. Please judge the article on its own merits. It is very well-sourced to only reliable sources - Associated Press ("http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2010/11/03/israel_takes_aim_at_palestinian_incitement/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+Boston+Globe+--+World+News Israel takes aim at Palestinian 'incitement'"), Agence France Presse ("Palestinian PM vows crackdown on arms, incitement, calls for talks with Israel"), The New York Times ("http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/world/middleeast/12westbank.html Palestinians Honor a Figure Reviled in Israel as a Terrorist"), BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2989783.stm, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post ("http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=281005 'Palestinian incitement continuing unabated'"), etc. Addressing Incitement is indubitably a key aspect to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Policy grounds for the wholesale removal of the article are quite tenuous
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The article is not neutrally written, and appears to be based around advocating a particular POV. As such  is in order on the grounds that this is a POV fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: on the notion that "the article can be improved to address this real issue in a NPOV way", the retitle->fix approach. The statement sounds reasonable but there isn't an evidence-based reason to believe that the statement is true. Optimistic statements like this seem to be largely based on the premise that "Wikipedia has remedies in place to tackle its policy violation issues", to quote the  essay, but that premise simply isn't true in the  topic area. The notion that the community can rename and fix articles like this is a belief, an article of faith of the community, an admirable one perhaps, but it isn't supported by the evidence. Wikipedia doesn't have remedies in place in the  topic area that can ensure and enforce NPOV compliance. Nor does the topic area have the editor resources available to fix article-scale NPOV problems like this article. POV concerns in the ARBPIA topic area aren't an opportunity for something to be fixed and improved in practice, they're a problem, a sign of failure and symptom of more systemic problems that editors and admins active in the topic area haven't managed to solve. Sometimes, it really is just better to blow it up and start again and I think this article is a prime example
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD||WP:ARBPIA||WP:ARBPIA)

Comment: Then |salt forever. This is an |unwarranted expansion of a topic that should rate nothing more than a few paragraphs in some other article, like Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no way in heaven or hell that this will ever be a viable article, or that it is even an encyclopedic topic at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per  and .  By  it's very nature, it is impossible for this article to meet .  Wikipedia is NOT a propaganda repository
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:NOTADVOCATE||WP:NPOV)