| Revision as of 16:34, 4 March 2010 editNo More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,461 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:35, 4 March 2010 edit undoGregorB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers185,113 edits No building upNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| **I have now removed the 9/11 stuff from the article. ] 16:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | **I have now removed the 9/11 stuff from the article. ] 16:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per Peter. ] (]) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per Peter. ] (]) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. I don't think this is a "collection of rumours", as the article is quite factual and draws on several reliable sources. I could not detect POV problems, since all explanations are presented (spying/fraud/urban myth) and I see no attempts at WP:OR in the process. The article does not say whether disparate reports are somehow connected or not. ] is met. The previous deletion discussion has little or no bearing, because that nomination concentrated on flaws of the previous article that don't seem to be repeated here. ] (]) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. I don't think this is a "collection of rumours", as the article is quite factual and draws on several reliable sources. I could not detect POV problems, since all explanations are presented (spying/fraud/urban myth) and I see no attempts at WP:OR in the process. The article does not say whether disparate reports are somehow connected or not. The "building up to a claim" assertion is simply false. ] is met. The previous deletion discussion has little or no bearing, because that nomination concentrated on flaws of the previous article that don't seem to be repeated here. ] (]) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small><small>—] (]) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small><small>—] (]) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small><small>—] (]) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small><small>—] (]) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)</small> | ||
Revision as of 16:35, 4 March 2010
Israeli art student scam
- Israeli 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 seems to be a collection of rumours building up to a claim that bogus art students were somehow connected with 9/11, with all the linkings being WP:Original research and innuendo. It has also been aggravated by an editor on the other side of the IP-battleground adding anti-Palestinian allegations. Peter cohen (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per Peter cohen.AMuseo (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
See previous deletion discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_studentsAMuseo (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. The page appears to cover two disparate subjects: (a) people posing as Israeli art students selling bogus art; (b) people posing as Israeli art students doing scary things connected to 9/11. The second appears to be squarely in fringe theory, but may be a notable fringe topic; the first appears to be notable by the sources (1–4) given in this article. Ucucha 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have now removed the 9/11 stuff from the article. Ucucha 16:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Peter. Breein1007 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't think this is a "collection of rumours", as the article is quite factual and draws on several reliable sources. I could not detect POV problems, since all explanations are presented (spying/fraud/urban myth) and I see no attempts at WP:OR in the process. The article does not say whether disparate reports are somehow connected or not. The "building up to a claim" assertion is simply false. WP:GNG is met. The previous deletion discussion has little or no bearing, because that nomination concentrated on flaws of the previous article that don't seem to be repeated here. GregorB (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)