Deletion of Art student scam

Comment: Article clearly establishes notability via several reliable sources.  A bad-faith nomination in the same  vein that has plagued the likes of the Israeli apartheid article over the years.  A band of like-minded editors who seek to delete what they cannot water down
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: the topic itself is notable as evidenced by the sources and the fact that an article, perhaps not this current version, had support as a notable topic. If there are issues with specific content those can be worked out through the normal channels. If the people here have a problem with specific content failing to abide by Wikipedia policies they should first try to go to the relevant noticeboard or open an RFC. Deletion is not one of the channels that are to be used with such issues. The topic of an art student scam is notable, which is the only thing that matters at AFD. SYNTH issues should be taken to the /N|OR noticeboard and POV issues to the /N|NPOV noticeboard. That or opening an RFC
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I'm frankly disgusted at this nomination, these editors are POV pushing to ridiculous lengths. The attempts to sweep this incident under the carpet are blatant attempts at political censorship. They failed to label this as mere gossip and to keep articles like that from ''Salon'' out of the article, so they want to delete it. This is obviously notable, it gained substantial coverage in multiple sources over an extended period. The claim that this is simply conspiracy-mongering is a total misreading of the sources. This is ''not'' an "anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theory" (nice use of the label "anti-semitic" to try to sway this), it is an account of a scam (called the "Israeli art student scam" by most sources except Wikipedia), and how this scam might have been used as cover for an espionage operation.  is not a reason for deletion, but that's all the deletion arguments amount to. You simply don't like something that possibly reflects poorly on Israel. If it had been Iran or China accused of this you'd not be arguing for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per Ynhockey and brewcrewer. Nableezy, a quote from #Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position: "Wikipedia does not publish original research", so if SYNTH applies, which has been argued for convincingly, deletion is not up for debate. Edison, even if the topic of a synthesized WP entry should be notable it must not be published
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: The article seems to be much better sourced than most Wikipedia articles... its is loaded with references. The NPOV tag seems, to me, to be politically motivated, perhaps someone doesn't |like it... in any case, we should never delete such thoroughly sourced articles. The section about the alleged Israeli spy ring should probably be moved to a separate article, since it's not really about an art scam per se. After it is moved, it probably ought to be added to the list of Israel\Palestine articles under the I/P General Sanction
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: This article is the perfect description of . A number of different unconnected articles are brought together to create a concept. Any possible redeeming factor is outweighed by the fact that this article is hijacked by editors who do nothing else on Wikipedia but point out any possible misdeeds done by Jews and Israelis. When they run out of reliably sourced misdeeds, they make up new misdeeds
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The subject at hand appears to definitely be notable and i'm really not seeing  happening here, as conglomerating different examples of things that are labeled art scams (involving supposed art students) isn't synthesizing anything at all. The separate instances are clearly shown to be involving the main topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: it meets ,  and .   Many of the deletes are applying the wrong criteria.  NPOV and COATRACK are not really basis for deletion, they're basis for improving the article.  Seems there is slow-burning edit war over POV, but that is not a reason to delete the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: no policy violation was cited in the nomination...this appears to be a case of . There are sufficient reliable sources in the article to show notability. Also, as no one else has linked it: |Wikipedia is not censored. I don't understand the purpose of deleting an article if it's not fully NPOV...it ought to be fixed...and deletion isn't the fix. It's unfortunate that its taking so much time from
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTCENSORED)