Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (3rd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May I suggest that the discussion be extended to Joel Leyden, which has also been deleted and restored several times? It's currently deleted, but given the history of wheel warring, it's just a matter of time before someone restores it. --woggly 18:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest a separate nomination. Many, myself included, have expressed the opinion that, while the INA may be notable as an organization, Leyden does not himself merit an article of his own. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- We will deal with that article once we have delt with this one. I am not going to patrols two AFDs.Geni 19:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Votes" from people with less than 150 edits
- Strong Keep The INA has been voted on twice before in AfD and the result both times were "keep." It appears that there are a few here who are willing to ignore facts and pursue an agenda of attacking the INA. This is most vividly illustrated by the fact that Danny deleted the Israel News Agency article twice out of process after a community consensus to keep. If we are to judge notability by deeds, being the first Israeli government accredited source [1] of online news in 1995 speaks volumes. To judge by association the hundreds of international media organizations [2] and blogs using the Israel News Agencys materials is substantial. To judge by impact using Alexa.com and Google web / Google news [3] reaching over 60 million readers world wide the INA appears more than notable on all three accounts. Karnei 19:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay - Do not understand the personal character attacks on Leyden. If Google News and the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs finds the Israel News Agency notable, so do I. Potterseesall 10:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Potterseesall (talk • contribs) now blocked as a sockpuppet of Israelbeach (talk • contribs).
- Delete for reasons from others. CaliEd 02:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep However reputable this site is doesn't matter. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about other sources of propaganda or misinformation, but those articles just mention that they are considered as such. My proposed solution would be to edit the current article to say that INA has beeen accused of being spam and using wikipedia for SEO. But we should also include a section about criticism or censoring that this incident has brought up, then lock the topic. This would maintain NPOV and disprove claims of censoring by wikipedia. Whoever does the rewrite, though, would have to be very careful of language.--1337n00blar (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (PS: Isn't Bonnieisrael one of the suspected Leyden sock-puppets?) Hpaami 15:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Puppet theatre
As a community service, here is a list of the sockpuppets and meatpuppets we can expect to pay a visit to this debate: User:Tzanchan, User:Traffics, User:Specops, User:Potterseesall, User:Perupalm, User:Maayanbaruch, User:Lennys, User:Karnei, User:Israelimp, User:Givati, User:Bronxgirl, User:Bonnieisrael and User:Achlasaba. There are also some anti-Leyden puppets out there such as User:Hpaami and User:Kfceater, but I haven't been keeping as careful track of them. --woggly 08:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You forgot Bluegrasstom and Nancetlv. -DejahThoris 18:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- They were both indefinitely blocked back in May (along with several others), so I don't think they'll be coming back. --woggly 18:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Restricted AfD
Is it just me, or is there something very odd about the way this VfD is being handled? What's up with the way people are moving plain old comments that aren't votes to this talk page and labelling them, in quotes, as votes? For that matter, what's up with the way people are moving votes from people who don't have at least 150 edits here, when it's Wikipedia policy that everyone is allowed to vote, even if their vote won't be counted? What's with people insisting that others are not to vote if they don't have the requisite number of edits, even though it is, as stated, Wikipedia policy that everyone is allowed to vote?
Controversial votes have had similar limits to the 150 edit one imposed here, but the good ones didn't suffer from attempts to deny people their votes and comments, even if some of the votes weren't counted. See this for a great example.
Unfortunetly, it seems that this vote is already completely spoiled. Stanfordandson 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- As the backstory makes perfectly plain, every time this debate has been run it has been serially disrupted by sockpuppets. The threshold is set very low. Oh, and it's not a vote - VfD went a while back. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Read my comment. I didn't once object to the threshold. Instead, I objected to the way it was implemented. Stanfordandson 04:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
