The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). nneonneo talk 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
It Was created by a notorious sockpuppet and it may have been part of a concerted POV campaign. Plus It relies primarily on two biased sources, only one of which can be linked to. Plus it appears to have been heavily plagarised from the main source Annoynmous ( talk) 02:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep per all my lengthy discussions with the nominator and my reading and minor clean-up experience at the article. No rationale for deletion as per policy has been presented. Prashanthns ( talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Most of the sources in support of the sock editors agenda are concentrated in 4 places. Diana Muir's article. Jacob Lessner and :S.llan troen's book, Adam Garfinkel's book and Alan dowty. Aside from the fact that none of these people had wikipedia pages before the mysterious editor created them, they come from very biased backgrounds and couldn't really be considered notable or reliable. Adam garfinkle use to edit the conservative American interest. S.llan Troen is head hair of Israel studies at brandei university. Diana Muir, she is an historian of New England so I don't why she is qualified to speak on Israel. Plus as Eleland pointed out on the talk page, she advocates that the black checked keffiyeh is symbol of palstinian determination to destroy the jewish state. These aren't neutral sources people. I wish I could tell you more about them, but there isn't much on there pages. An indication to me that the editor new they weren't highly regarded commentators. So add that to the sock editors crimes, artificially inflating the number of sources and reling on biased and obscure academics. annoynmous 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Prashanthns ( talk) 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). nneonneo talk 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
It Was created by a notorious sockpuppet and it may have been part of a concerted POV campaign. Plus It relies primarily on two biased sources, only one of which can be linked to. Plus it appears to have been heavily plagarised from the main source Annoynmous ( talk) 02:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep per all my lengthy discussions with the nominator and my reading and minor clean-up experience at the article. No rationale for deletion as per policy has been presented. Prashanthns ( talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Most of the sources in support of the sock editors agenda are concentrated in 4 places. Diana Muir's article. Jacob Lessner and :S.llan troen's book, Adam Garfinkel's book and Alan dowty. Aside from the fact that none of these people had wikipedia pages before the mysterious editor created them, they come from very biased backgrounds and couldn't really be considered notable or reliable. Adam garfinkle use to edit the conservative American interest. S.llan Troen is head hair of Israel studies at brandei university. Diana Muir, she is an historian of New England so I don't why she is qualified to speak on Israel. Plus as Eleland pointed out on the talk page, she advocates that the black checked keffiyeh is symbol of palstinian determination to destroy the jewish state. These aren't neutral sources people. I wish I could tell you more about them, but there isn't much on there pages. An indication to me that the editor new they weren't highly regarded commentators. So add that to the sock editors crimes, artificially inflating the number of sources and reling on biased and obscure academics. annoynmous 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Prashanthns ( talk) 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply