Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Art student scam: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:12, 10 August 2010 editMbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 edits →Art student scam: fixed typo← Previous edit Revision as of 18:17, 10 August 2010 edit undoLuckymelon (talk | contribs)102 edits →Art student scam: deleteNext edit →
Line 60: Line 60:
] (]) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC) ] (]) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
: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.--] (]) 18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC) :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.--] (]) 18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''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. --] (]) 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:17, 10 August 2010

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)

  • Strong Delete: Article reads like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • Delete. Per well-said rationale of Ynhockey.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete per Ynhockey and brewcrewer. Nableezy, a quote from WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position: "Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
> 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)
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)
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)
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 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)

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)

  • 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)

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

And notability is not the concern here. Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages: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)
  • Return to sane state and keep. The scam itself is borderline notable even without the conspiracy theory. In my opinion Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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. Misplaced Pages will only benefit, if that so called article is deleted and forgotten. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
Categories: