Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Internet Defense Force

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was weak keep. Sandstein 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Internet Defense Force[edit]

This group does not appear to be very notable outisde its own circle. I personally suspect it to be more of self-advertiseing than an actual article MethMan47 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this wikipedian seems to know his way around wikipedia and its guidelines pretty well for someone with only 4 random edits to his/her name. this wikipedian is most probably a sockpuppet of an involved party and this nomination thus contravenes WP:DEL. ephix (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...no I'm not a sockpuppet. And I guarentee I have more than 4 edits, thank you very much. Please quit trying to stifle debate. Thanks. MethMan47 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And if you are reffering to edits to my own page, then yes there are only about 4 edits. I didn't realize a member of of Wikipedia's merit was judged by how often he edits his own page, I was under the impression that contributions to actual articles was more important. But anyway, enough of this, continuing on with the discussion. MethMan47 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep They do seem a bit WP:ONEVENTy, but then that applies to people not groups. I can find news items on the Facebook thing in papers from six countries [1], including the Telegraph and Jerusalem Post, which I think qualifies for notability. Irritatingly the latter seems to be a broken URL, but the snippet on Google News search confirms the gist of what the Telegraph article says. The article could certainly do with improvement: several of the claims there seem to be unsourced, such as the 'over 100 groups' claim which is sourced only to a complaint about this article on the group's website. Olaf Davis | Talk 00:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article could indeed be classified as "self-advertisement" if it wasn't for the fact several mainstream international news agencies have taken notice of it. Whether or not this group will be making news 20 years from now is irrelevant: it is newsworthy at the present and justifies a Wikipedia article on it. As an aside, the article's broken JPost reference URL is now working. Osmos2017 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: hello? who are you? another sockpuppet? lol, this is fun. ephix (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this comment of Osmos's to the bottom since it looked like it was the nomination up there. In reply, the self-advertising is in my opinion more of an issue of tone than the article's existence. Indeed, since this AfD has been open you've changed the article's wording to mention "the insidious existence of over 100 Facebook groups espousing rabidly hateful, genocidal, and violent doctrines". I'm afraid that violates our neutral point of view policy, which you might want to read: quoting the group as describing them that way would be fine, but Wikipedia articles should not themselves state that groups or people are 'insidious' or 'rabid'. Even the statement that the groups in question were hateful and genocidal is at present sourced only to one article (as far as I can tell) and gives no attention to the opposite view: presumably the tens of thousands of members of those groups would disagree with the characterisation, and that makes it sufficiently controversial that we can't reproduce it on the grounds that one or two journalists agreed the groups were nasty. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - while I have concerns about their long-term notability, looking for references reveals that they easily pass WP:RS, having been the subject of news coverage from various independent media organisations. A year or two from now, this group may or may not have faded into irrelevance; but for now at least, I don't think their notability is in doubt. Terraxos (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETEThe page seems to be a vehicle to host links to strongly one sided sites re the Palastinian Isreali conflict. Propaganda page only for a POV with links to external sites promoting same Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this organisation and its activities have been noted by the media, and with the citations included it seems to conform to WP:N and WP:ORG, but should be rewritten to improve its style. ephix (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - conforms to WP:N, - well sourced etc. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources cited in this article border on being "a short burst of news reports about a single event". It's not clear to me whether this is truly a notable organization or if this was basically a news item. So, I suggest we err on the side of keeping the article - we can always revisit if it becomes clear down the road that this was just a news item.--Kubigula (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The JIDF as content conforms to WP:N, the issue of whether it lasts as a hot topic is something that will have to be judged in the future. On WP:ONEVENT, actually the JIDF have been on the radio on other topics, so it is not really one event, but this is certainly the biggest event. NB: I'm not entirely uninvolved given that I have commented in the press on them and have a publication coming out soon (so you may want to disregard this vote). (It does mean there will be another source though if anyone want sto look out for it and add it). Oboler (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps when that source becomes available you could mention it here or on the article's talk page, Oboler: that way I or another editor without any risk of seeming to have a COI can decide whether it's appropriate to add. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. – The organization is notable, having been referenced on at least one web page that discusses "military matters and terrorism". However, I agree that the article looks as if it's been copied from the organization's web site. The text of the article needs to be completely re-written from an NPOV. I recommend placing the article into Wikipedia's "intensive care unit" rather than deleting it. A lizard (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: This article does not belong in the WICU, because that is only for articles that have not been marked for deletion. Rather, it should be marked for rescue, which I just did. — A lizard (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE, ASAP How a group created on FACEBOOK, be notable enough to to include in WikiPediA, also check the Author words which seeks to remove from the web hateful anti-Semitic and anti-Israel content that "clearly promotes violence and Islamic terrorism" what are their criteria of judging? and who gave them the authority to judge? is this group Group belongs to the United Nations?
For a statment like this one "FACEBOOK: Why do you aid and abet terrorist organizations?" and this "successfully leading to the closure of over 100 of these groups" this is not more than original research, where are the referances?
Also a sentense like this "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country" Whoever said that Israel is not a country, Israel is a well known country to the whole world.
Can anyone help me with the definition of what they call Islamic terrorism, and what about if we used a similar definition and invent JIDF Anti Freedoms Terrorism.
In addition of being un-notable group, this article is UNFAIRE.
They can help their country as they wish and by any mean but outside Wikipedia pages, WikipediA is an unbiased, un-political organization, so please delete it as soon as possible--Puttyschool (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The organization is notable and it was not created on Facebook. I agree that the language in the article is not neutral and in fact, is not even original: it is identical to much of the language on the group's web site. You might disagree with the goals of this group, but that is not a reason why this article should not exist in a form that is in accordance with NPOV. The article needs to be rewritten, not deleted. You have requested a definition of "Islamic Terrorism," well, Wikipedia already has one. — A lizard (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Facebook or web, what make a difference, about the definition, I was not requesting the Wikipedia definition, which is based on a huge amount of references and neutral, (and not related to what they are doing), I was requesting their definition. Finaly a group of few countable peoples are not obligated to judge. About rewritten the article which gives the impression of an Anti Freedoms, political, biased, representing a single side, organization, now we are discussing keep or delete, and they can write a different one again, but for this one it must be deleted.--Puttyschool (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please check how articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict are written, In addition to the neutral point of view, how the references are listed. They are not a place to show (Or promote) a single point of view.Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian territories It is not a matter of notability; it is a matter of fairness. Also Wikipedia is not a place for resolving conflict issues. For me, I do not believe the Internet or Wikipedia are war places requiring a Defense Forces(DF)--Puttyschool (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think anyone's denying that the article is a mess, violates NPOV and OR, etc. etc. However, that is not the issue: the reasons for deletion are about article topics, so we must decide whether this topic is worthy of an article. If the answer is yes then the article will have to be severely rewritten; if no then it will be deleted. You say "It is not a matter of notability; it is a matter of fairness". Well, it is a matter of notability because at AfD we're concerned with whether the topic is notable enough for an article, without concern for the current state of the article. This is the established convention and is laid down in the deletion policy. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.