Deletion of Ouze Merham

Comment: I agree with the nom by {{user|ChrisO}}, who laid out the delete rationale very very well.  Also agree with previous comment by {{user|Huldra}}.  If consensus is not to delete, then Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict might be the best place to merge to - but this article's topic fails the "significant coverage" of  quite obviously. There simply aren't enough / secondary sources that ''significantly'' delve into this topic in enough detail/analysis to satisfy notability for an article on one quote/hoax
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: but no objection to merging to Islamic Human Rights Commission##Award to Ariel Sharon for hoax interview. It's verifiable information, so no point in losing it. Merging into a mainstream article like Ariel Sharon or one of the main conflict articles would certainly breach . Sometimes less notable things about very notable people are better having their own articles rather than being detailed (or mentioned) in places where they would not be particularly significant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: The article easily meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The controversy over the use of the hoax by The Daily Illini is sourced to both the DI and the Chicago Sun Times, both reliable sources, one a mainstream newspaper. The controversy over the fact that a notable organization, the Islamic Human Rights Commission not only fell for the hoax, but awarded it a prize, was covered by a leading Australian TV station. I would not object to re-naming the article Ouze merham hoax, but I suggest the nominator re-familiarize himself with what otability says, and that the commentators claiming the article has nothing but a reference to a student newspaper actually read the article, before !voting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per . Lack of media coverage does not necessairily imply lack of notability, especially for a subject that naturally would have less western/english-language coverage.  Even so, there are a couple legit sources, and it won an award from a legit organization. Unverified sections can be cleaned without deleting the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)