Deletion of Alleged Ya'alon quotation

Comment: A phrase in plain English is not a neologism, and hence  should not apply here.  Other than that, no real opinion on this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: While you convinced me to ''merge'', I disagree that ''there's absolutely no reason to entirely delete well-sourced information''. There are ''many'' reasons to do so: when the information doesn't verify is on the top of the list. |Verifiability, not truth is as important a core principle or even more important than |reliable sources. Second on the list is bias, an important part of : we must give due weight to arguments, even if this means deprecating sourcing (just because one side of a dispute is more vocal or has better media, we shouldn't give them undue weight). And ''another'' reason, is |notability: ''is this worth writing for in an encyclopedia?''. For example, see this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Croft. The article was very well sourced, from reliable and notable media, but the subject was not deemed worth of encyclopedic treatment. Sourcing isn't everything, and de-COATRACKing as you suggested is something that many articles around here could use
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:N)

Comment: Pretty obviously not notable by WP standards, material is far too weak to carry a whole page. I mean are we going to have a page here for every complaint or allegation of discrepancy or media error raised on the (highly partisan, as it happens) CAMERA website, or for every ''alleged'' misquote in the world ever? As noted,  and  issues as well, quite apart from the more fundamental  problem
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:NPOV||WP:NN)

Comment: into Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. It seems that CAMERA's disputation is this quotation's main claim to notability. The CAMERA article already has a long section dedicated to their commentary. Merging it into Moshe Ya'alon is also an option, but I think it would result in |undue weight
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: The article claims that the "alleged Ya’alon quotation" is "widely cited" but it has zero hits in http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=pn&q=%22alleged+Ya%E2%80%99alon+quotation%22 Google News, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22alleged%20Ya%E2%80%99alon%20quotation%22&sa=N&tab=np  Books, and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22alleged%20Ya%E2%80%99alon%20quotation%22&sa=N&tab=ns Scholar. (  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:R)