Deletion of Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (2nd nomination)

Comment: article fulfills  &  and .  I would also have to say it probably falls under  as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:CITE||WP:NPOV||WP:CSB)

Comment: This is a pretty straightforward article. Its subject is an important aspect of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and it is covered by countless reliable sources. Like Template:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict|many other aspects of that conflict, it is too large for the main article, and, like them, has been spun out according to  and . Some of the comments on the article's talk page and on the previous AfD, the speed with which the article was renominated for AfD, the generally low level of pro-deletion arguments here and on the previous AfD, as well as the stunning variety of different and sometimes contradictory reasons adduced by those who would delete it-- all these indicate that - without prejudice to any particular editor - we have a pattern of  on our hands. I will refute the pro-deletion arguments that have been raised, though this is a difficult job since most of them have not been developed enough to really understand
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZE||WP:SUMMARY||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: There was no consensus at the last AfD a week ago to delete (per what Brewcrewer said above). The article is well sourced and I don't see how it goes against 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: nom and delete arguments fail to demonstrate how article is violation of Wikipedia:forking, Wikipedia:not, and .  There are 83 sources cited, very specifically addressing the topic of this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: per Brewcrewer and Jalapenos. I'll add that most of the sources I checked explicitly connect the incidents to the particular conflict, so I don't see a  problem. I would not object to renaming it from "Antisemitic" to "Anti-Jewish", but that's an argument for , not AFD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:RM)

Comment: because the article is to the point, and fulfills all the requirements of ,  and . Also kindly note: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:CITE||WP:NPOV)

Comment: as per nom. Is original research, and is 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: I don't think  is a concern here; gathering multiple sources and sourcing each fact to one of those sources is not ''original research'', but ''research''. SYNTH is when a statement is made which is not by supported by any of the sources, but rather relies on a bridge between sources. All of the sources relate to the article's topic, and none of the sources fail verifiability. The most weighty concern against the article relates to NOTNEWS, but if the issue is global, and lasting over time, it has risen above a mere news story and become an encyclopedic notable topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Sloppily-constructed, |originally-researched |content fork.  Lumping together disparate elements into a grand unified theory of antisemitism also runs afoul of , perhaps the greatest transgression here of all.  Most of the Keep votes amount to  and "it is |reliably sourced so it must be kept!", which completely misses the point of violating the aforementioned three policies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:FORK||WP:SYNTH||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:RS)

Comment: None of the claims for deleting this article were established. The subject is big enough to deserve its own article, hence |forking is irrelevant here; so is , no section in this policy was pointed out as being violated by this article; the article is well referenced by |reliable sources therefore WP:SYNTH is not applicable either. The short time this article is again in AfD after extensive discussions in a previous AfD and a deletion review, raises concerns regarding the |good faith in bringing it up again for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK||WP:NOT||WP:RS||WP:AGF)

Comment: 1) Please list which attacks have not been verified as being antisemitic. 2) The article is called incidents which happened during the conflict. Please indicate where OR has been included in the article. 3) Also please clarify which article this Wikipedia:forking|forks; which Wikipedia:not applies here, and where  is exposed. Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: The nom (and some of the other editors expressing '''delete''' opinions) seem to believe that "righteous anger" against Jews as an ethnic group is justified on the basis of a particular Israeli|Israeli military operation. Putting aside for a moment any merits or problems there may be to this argument, such a discussion is ''irrelevant'' to Wikipedia. Consistent with , all we are supposed to do here is document phenomena that occur in the world, offering no opinion on what that information means
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: If it fits in with policies (and it seems to) then it should be kept. I'm not sure if I even understand which piece of Wikipedia policy would give a reason for this article to be deleted. There is so much cited material (in accordance with  there are over 80 refereneces) which documents a real subject!. If there are problems with the article, then it needs work, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE)