Deletion of Controversial Israeli and Zionist quotes

Comment: It is possible to collect only those facts which support a particular point of view, such that even a presentation of facts can violate our |NPOV policy. This appears to be one of those times. The page is also orphaned, which speaks to the "indiscriminate collection of information" point - a pretty specious collection of data, really
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: As Isotope23, above.  Also, this appears dangerously close to |original research -- the author is attempting to describe a phenomenon by citing instances of that phenomenon and not commentary about it in secondary sources.  And finally, allowance of this article would mandate an inappropriate |POV article fork for its anti-Israeli counterpart 'phenomenon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: for several reasons: besides being an indiscriminate collection of information (Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes; there's Wikiquotes for that), the selection of quotes is inherently a POV act; and more importantly, the sourcing -- that is, the |verifiability the the quotes are genuine -- is either nonexistent, or completely |unreliable. Sites like Rense.com are not even remotely reliable for Wikipedia purposes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Ignoring for a moment the quote farm (which should go) & the website list (which should also go) as editorial issues - and ignoring the strong |POV this article completely hinges on whether or not one can consider a series of websites selectively publishing "controversial" quotations as a phenomenon.  This is really the crux of the article.  Deeming these "Israeli and Zionist" quote sites a "phenomenon" is not ; i.e. there is no external source provided (and I could not find one myself) that has documented the "phenomenon" of this type of quotation.  That being said, This makes the very central point of the article |original research, unless sources are provided that this has been documented as a "phenomenon" by |reliable sorces.  Drop the contention that this is a phenomenon and you are left with a link farm and quote list... both violating .  There are of course websites that selectively choose quotes to publish, but this is a general practice, not limited to sites quoting Israelis about Zionism.  I could find you dozens of websites that only mention the witicisms of H.L. Mencken, while completely ignoring his racist comments.  That doesn't make an article called People quoting H.L. Mencken selectively an encyclopedic article though.  Without sources that this is documented as a "phenomenon" the very contention of such is original research and what is left is an indescriminate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:RS||WP:NOT)