Deletion of Allegations of Jewish control of the media

Comment: this unsalvageable mish-mash violating  springing from User:Noleander who was Wikipedia:Topic ban|topic-banned by the ArbCom from Jews and Judaism topics because of creating controversial, POV-foisting articles such as these, see
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: The topic is probably encyclopedic.  However, this article suffers from flaws so broadly fundamental that |blowing it up is the better solution.  JFW's desire to draw attention to the evidence Mathsci presented at Arbitration is appropriate.  There is every reason to consider this article equally suspect.  Again, a fundamental problem with the article is that scholarly sources exist which would provide a broad, reasoned, long-term view of the topic.  However, this article is, in the main, not constructed from such sources.  This is especially profound in the "Analysis and Commentary" section, which provides little or nothing in the terms of broad, long-view analysis.  Rather it is an isolated series of observations, mostly consisting of headcounts of Jews in certain positions, patchworked together in the place of actual commentary.  Furthermore, these observations (as with the article in general) are divorced from anything resembling a chronological examination (1999 statements by the ADL are sandwiched between 1936 and 1941 observations), and are often from sources that, although reliable in the Wikipedia sense (''Slate'', ''Midstream''), are ill-equipped to provide "analysis" of the topic.  Consider as well that Foxman's book is given probably undue weight as a subtopic in and of itself, but is nevertheless cited as a reference elsewhere in the article.  Even if there is no misrepresentation of the material claims in any of the sources used, this style of reference selection, in the context of an article of this nature, advances an inherent POV, a POV that ArbCom has already ruled against by sanctioning one of the primary editors involved
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: There's no question that the subject is notable. It's a difficult subject on which to write an article, but that's not a justification for deletion. See .  We deal with articles like that all the time. For sources, try searching Google Books: http://www.google.com/search?q=jewish+control+of+the+media&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=jewish+control+of+the+media&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&ei=tC2-TczPIpS-sQPbvMi_BQ&start=40&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=80362dc766be3622
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: It might well be possible to write a neutral, objectively worded article on the subject, but this one is not it. The flaws are so fundamental that deletion would be appropriate for this version. A new version of the article should be created in userspace by an interested and objective editor and reviewed at  before migration to mainspace
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: An article claiming to be about an "antisemitic canard" is in fact an article that (to the receptive mind) ''promotes'' the claim that "the Jews control the media". Using "Allegations" is just an admission that the topic is not encyclopedic. A new article on a similar topic might be acceptable if written by an editor who does not have a focus on this sort of stuff, and which is based on ''good'' sources (not just stuff that scrapes by 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS)