Deletion of Daniel Sperber

Comment: The nominator has failed to substantiate a legitimate criterion for deletion. Disagreement with an article subject's POV is not a basis for deletion. The subject is clearly |notable per . The idea that an Israel Prize recipient could be characterized as having no notability as a scholar boggles the imagination. An Israel Prize winner meets  as the recipient of a |notable award for contributions. See also the list of sources in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: regardless of any imbalance in the article and the appropriateness of the references the article clearly shows notability and sources. IZAK...you seem to greatly dislike this man which is #I_don.27t_like_it|not a good deletion reason. The pertinent bit of WP:Notability is the phrase ''A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article.''. Seems to clearly pass the line
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: as above.  To the nom, if you feel that your worldview is not inadequately represented, by all means write encyclopaedic articles on topics close to your heart and work towards  on articles that aim to be broad, but for heavens sake, do not attempt to delete articles about alternative worldviews
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: sourced and referenced, should pass  with enough space to get an elephant through. Not liking the content of an article is not enough reason to nominate it for AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)