Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art student scam

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Preciseaccuracy (talk | contribs) at 04:56, 11 August 2010 (→Art student scam: Your twisting the argument mbz1, this article is about spying allegations,not 9/11). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Art student scam

AfDs for this article:
Art student scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was nominated on deletion on 4/3/2010. It was kept as "no consensus", and only because it was "rewritten intensely" according to the closing administrator. Now it was rewritten once again, and it is back to it's problematic form. This article is not encyclopedic, because it is a collection of rumors that were strongly denied by the officials. Nobody ever got convicted in any "spying" cases mentioned in the article. Part of a renewed article represents just another 9/11 and spying conspiracy theory that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article that apparently is "Art student scam". Broccoli (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: Article reads like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is the perfect description of WP:SYNTH. 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.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as before. I believe that the closing administrator of the previous AfD was right in giving it a chance, since the trimmed "globalized" version of the article was fairly balanced and neutral. However, it is clear that we can only make this a good article in theory, while in practice there is always going to be a number of editors who will make a gargantuan effort to rewrite the article in their vision (which is not neutral, suffers from extreme undue weight and synthesis). There doesn't seem to be any solution at this point other than deletion. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a mess. The few lines about petty scams serve as a tiny rack for what's essentially a huge NPOV coat, and Bc's point about SYNTH is right on. PhGustaf (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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 OR noticeboard and POV issues to the NPOV noticeboard. That or opening an RFC. nableezy - 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per well-said rationale of Ynhockey.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject, as shown by extensive coverage by all the major US news services as well as some in Britain, based on field reports by numerous US government agency employees. We do not delete an article related to some supposed conspiracy or scam just because some government official announces there is nothing to it. It is in the nature of government spokesmen to avoid offending friendly nations. We do not delete an article about a notable subject because it offends some editors. Deletion is not a substitute for editing when the subject is clearly notable. Edison (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ynhockey and brewcrewer. Nableezy, a quote from WP:OR#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. --tickle me 19:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic is notable there is no cause for deletion. If there is a version of this article that people felt was notable and met Wikipedia content policies this article should not be deleted. Such a version exists (e.g. this). We fix articles that are notable but fail content policies such as NPOV or NOR. Whether the topic itself is notable is what counts at an AfD. nableezy - 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
> a version .... that people felt was notable ... Such a version exists
when and by whom has that been decided? --tickle me 20:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about the first AfD? Many of the users who had voted to delete changed their vote after the article was rewritten. nableezy - 20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that "no consensus" was reached, so that doesn't seem to be a strong case for notability. --tickle me 07:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I wrote? I wrote that many people, including the original nominator of the AfD, changed their vote to a keep based on the rewrite. Read the closing statement. They [the changes made in the rewrite] have also caused some, including the nominator, to change their opinion from "delete" to solutions that do not require deletion (see the section "Article rewritten", below). Notably, no new "delete" opinion has been registered after the end of the rewrite. Also, most of the "delete" opinions are not because of perceived problems with the topic as such (e.g., non-notability), but rather because of perceived flaws in the article content (such as fringe, coatrack, synthesis, etc.). The delete votes here suffer from the same flaw as those there, that people dislike the content or feel it is SYNTH or a COATRACK of OR. Fine, fix the problem. Notability is the determining factor for whether or not an article is deleted. The AfD is being used because people are unwilling to deal with the normal procedure for solving a content dispute. That is what this is, not a discussion on the actual notability of the topic, which is what AfD is supposedly about, but rather people object to specific content in an otherwise notable article. We dont delete notable articles because some of the content fails OR or NPOV or whatever else, we fix those problems. nableezy - 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 washington post, this was written before many of the other articles and is the only one to claim to dismiss the allegations, however; the post admitted to not bothering to obtain the 60 pg. Dea document

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteI think both the spy story and con are notable and could get separate articles. However, this one is too far gone to be fixable in the near future. Variables including what the scope actually is still need to be addressed. And the original version (which this one is similar to) did not have enough support to keep during the last AfD. I lean towards deletion and editors writing up some drafts before it goes live in the main space.Cptnono (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very notable article that is well sourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And notability is not the concern here. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". Namely points 1 and 2 (WP:NOTADVOCATE and the rest). There is so much soapboxing, pushing of opinions on the subject (or at least one of the two subjects), and lack of presenting the information in an appropriate tone that it is not appropriate in the main space. We have had our chance and failed. Time to remove it and start from scratch. Wikipedia:Article Incubator might be a good start. Merging some of the information into another article (specific to the spying or Israeli espionage in the United States/Mossad might be an option. Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to sane state and keep. The scam itself is borderline notable even without the conspiracy theory. In my opinion Wikipedia is able to deal with the conspiracy nonsense adequately, and the best place to do so is as a side remark in article on the scam in general. We generally don't delete articles just because they are POV pushing or conspiracy theorist magnets. Full protection in a sane state that reflects the consensus of the last AfD may be a good idea, though. Hans Adler 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The thing is that this does not work like that,Hans Adler. That article was quite for some time, but then a single article account came about, and started pushing her agenda on each and every noticeboard she was able to find. If the article is returned back "to sane state" as you're suggesting, sooner or later (rather sooner than later) there will be tries to make it look as tabloid yesterday gossips once again. Wikipedia will only benefit, if that so called article is deleted and forgotten. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the version of the article before I started editing. What mbz1 has referred to as "fine" and a "sane state." Keep in mind, this article had originally been about Israeli spying allegations, the focus, however, had been completely twisted from being about the spying allegations to being about an unrelated chinese tourist trap. The article was basically whitewashed of referrences to Israel and mention of the inconclusive allegations was pushed to the bottom of the page where the spying was unequivically stated to be an "urban myth" without qualification despite numerous reliable sources pointing toward the, at the very least, inconclusive nature of the allegations.

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic case of "man bites dog" being reported widely and in detail because it sells newspapers, and the subsequent "um, no, the man didn't so much bite as beat the dog" getting much less space because it's much less interesting.
That often happens with conspiracy theories. They are reported more widely than their refutations because they are more interesting and appealing than their refutations.
It is important that Wikipedia covers notable conspiracy theories (such as this one), because we have the luxury of not having to sell papers. We can get things write, based on an intelligent evaluation of the sources. In this case the later reports make it clear that the earlier reports were erroneous/misleading, and we need an article which reflects this. Hans Adler 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's what administrator AliveFreeHappy said about the article's sources "Sources on a simple google search seem to say that the supposed DEA report in question is in and of itself not real - it was produced by a disgruntled DEA employee who planted the story.", and another quote by the same user: "Be assured that I have read what you've linked to and I appreciate the effort you put into it, but I don't reach the same conclusion that you do."--Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user above Alivefreehappy is strange, he claims that there is an "overwhelming body of evidence" that denounces this as a myth, but refuses to provide the links. The Sunday Herald wrote about this in 2003, two years later in a very serious manner. The second forward article was written in 2004 and treats spying on the u.s. in 2001 as inconclusive. Haaretz,the Forward, the Sunday Herald, Janes Intelligence, Insight, Salon, the Newspaper Creative Loafing, Democracy Now all came after the post claimed to "debunk" this and all treated spying allegations as inconclusive and not a myth. The washington post didn't even bother to obtain the dea document.

With regards to the dea document "To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers.

Of course, the agent (or agents) who wrote the memo could also have fabricated or embellished the field reports. That does not seem to have been the case. Salon contacted more than a half-dozen agents identified in the memo. One agent said she had been visited six times at her home by "art students." None of the agents wished to be named, and very few were willing to speak at length, but all confirmed the veracity of the information." " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the only one, who is strange (to say the least) is you, so called "Preciseaccuracy". It is you, who is a single article account, it is you, who keeps jumping from board to board, from talk page to talk page, and pushing, pushing, pushing the users to promote the article. I believe accounts like yours with conduct as yours should be topic banned for that single article you are so interested in for your own good because there were some days, when you took only four hours break in your never ending trying to promote that article, and to defame everybody, who disagrees with you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles like this harm the wikipedia. Encyclopedia articles should be generic pieces, not laced with speculation. I saw the original 'generic article and it was fine, but until the whole conspiracy section was put in making it nonsense. --Luckymelon (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please look here Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested. I do not know, if this article will get deleted, or not, but the user should be topic banned.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales page is the most neutral on wikipedia. It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- it meets WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. 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. Minor4th 19:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the only basis for deletion. Please see my comments above referring directly to the deletion policy.Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So many accounts saying "Its not about notability, but rather IDONTLIKEIT." Thus they agree it is a notable subject. Edison (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Lucky. This article looks way too much like a platform for some nasty, fringe, non-notable OR conspiracy-mongering. IronDuke 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ynhockey and Mbz1 Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and restore to its "sane state" per Hans Adler. I appreciate Cptnono's point of view, and it would certainly be easier on all of us to just delete the article, but I'm not eager to delete verifiable, at least marginally noteworthy subject matter (as reflected in the judicious version that Hans Adler produced during the prior AfD) because of specific editorial problems that could be addressed in a more direct way.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The topic is notable and supported by many reliable sources that mention "Israeli art scam" or "art scam" in the article headlines, not as some incidental comparison. AfD is not a way to deal with some edits you don't agree with. Revert it to the last version that survived an AfD if you like (which the nominator didn't sound like he found to be deletable) - argue out the details on the talk page or in mediation, but don't settle content disputes by mutual assured destruction. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - (Disgraceful Preciseaccuracy conspiracy theories/Jimbo canvassing aside), the topic is for sure notable as shown by coverage by multiple RS. None of the arguments given for deletion seem to comply with our deletion policy which requires us not to delete if something can be fixed by editing. Which is certainly the case here, as the very nominator and delete !votes agree. --Cyclopiatalk 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder, if users, who voted to keep bothered to read the links I provided about the opinion of the administrator, who has done research on the sources provided by Preciseaccuracy on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard by her request? Here's one more time: Administrator AliveFreeHappy said about the article's sources "Sources on a simple google search seem to say that the supposed DEA report in question is in and of itself not real - it was produced by a disgruntled DEA employee who planted the story.". There's nothing to be fixed there. That article is a disgrace and should be deleted. Here's the document that describes 9/11 conspiracy theories involving Jews and Israelis including the story about art students scam see page 18. The name of the document is: "Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" So, the question is: should an article that is yet another Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory be kept on Wikipedia? The answer is: No! --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the allegations are true. I am saying that they are notable. should an article that is yet another Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory be kept on Wikipedia? The answer is: yes, if it is a notable conspiracy theory. --Cyclopiatalk 01:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but then it should be written as it is in the document I linked to. It should be added to the right categories, while taking out of the wrong ones. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is OK but it has nothing to do with article deletion, since it can (and should) be dealt with editing. --Cyclopiatalk 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I assume that you would not mind changing the name of the article with accordance to the name of the document I linked to (Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Art students spying ring), just to call the things with their real names, you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your twisting the argument mbz1, this article is about spying allegations, not 9/11.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1, you're referring to Haaretz and The Forward as bastions of antisemitism? Your reliable source is the adl, a political organization that claims to fight defamation but is currently trying to get a muslim mosque banned from new york? http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoting the RS document I linked to.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The adl is a pro-israeli-advocacy group. Of course they are going to deny the allegations that Israel was spying on the United States. The other sources refer to the spying allegations as inconclusive. The guardian, telegraph, sunday herald, haaretz, the Forward ect. are not outlets for antisemitism. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to push any conspiracy theories. The inconclusive allegations shouldn't be referred to by the derogatory version of the word conspiracy theory. The sources treat the spying allegations in a very serious manner and at the very least as inconclusive. but once again this is what the wikipedia article looked like before I began editing, an article about spying allegations had been twisted to being an article about a chinese tourist trap where the allegations were described as an urban myth without any qualifiation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The adl is referring to Haaretz and the Forward as outlets for conspiracies? Take this quote from Haaretz describing Washington post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey, on September 11, of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly." Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definite Keep The subject at hand appears to definitely be notable and i'm really not seeing WP:SYNTH 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. SilverserenC 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_student_scam&oldid=378308633"