Content deleted Content added
Betsythedevine (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
*It's a linguistic shame that we lost the cute dual superhero title. that said, I would restrict the content to animal theories. That's what makes it interesting and really would be undue weight if scope is broadened to a general treatment of the conspiracy theories (which could verge from the more absurd to even correct suspicsions of Mossad operations). So I bet the 9-11 stuff is covered fine on some other page and more appropriate there.{{unsigned|TCO}} |
*It's a linguistic shame that we lost the cute dual superhero title. that said, I would restrict the content to animal theories. That's what makes it interesting and really would be undue weight if scope is broadened to a general treatment of the conspiracy theories (which could verge from the more absurd to even correct suspicsions of Mossad operations). So I bet the 9-11 stuff is covered fine on some other page and more appropriate there.{{unsigned|TCO}} |
||
*'''delete''' A propaganda piece which attempts, through highly selective quotation, to paint a false and misleading view of its subject. The shark attack part has already been dealt with at [[2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks#Israel conspiracy theory]]. It doesn't need a separate article of its own. The vulture part is of similarly low encyclopedic value, and linking the two together is a piece of [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]], not allowed in the encyclopedia. While the organisations used for sourcing are generally reliable, these items are really just pieces of trivia, there for a bit of humorous entertainment and not worthy of notability. They might belong in "trivia" sections of articles, but such sections are also discouraged here. --[[User:NSH001|NSH001]] ([[User talk:NSH001|talk]]) 10:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC) |
*'''delete''' A propaganda piece which attempts, through highly selective quotation, to paint a false and misleading view of its subject. The shark attack part has already been dealt with at [[2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks#Israel conspiracy theory]]. It doesn't need a separate article of its own. The vulture part is of similarly low encyclopedic value, and linking the two together is a piece of [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]], not allowed in the encyclopedia. While the organisations used for sourcing are generally reliable, these items are really just pieces of trivia, there for a bit of humorous entertainment and not worthy of notability. They might belong in "trivia" sections of articles, but such sections are also discouraged here. --[[User:NSH001|NSH001]] ([[User talk:NSH001|talk]]) 10:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' [[WP:SYNTH]] linking unrelated conspiracy theories, each of them advanced only by a small number of people, and a striking violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. This is the third article Mbz1 created and put up for DYK in just the past month on the theme of murderous/stupid Muslims, the other two being [[When_we_die_as_martyrs]] and [[Flora_and_Maria]].[[User:Betsythedevine|betsythedevine]] ([[User talk:Betsythedevine|talk]]) 12:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:37, 7 January 2011
Mossad shark and Zionist vulture
- Mossad shark and Zionist vulture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Two half-baked news-stories, "cooked" into one "article"? This is simply not encyclopedic. (Nice pictures, though!) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - The editors who created this page clearly did so for POV reasons, in an attempt to disparage the countries involved; hence, this page fails WP:ATTACK. Additionally, the topics strike me as barely WP:NOTABLE at best. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - as one stated here: [1]: ""Mossad shark and Zionist vulture" sounds like a great idea for a webcomic, not the name of an encyclopedia article." Huldra (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - At Talk:2010_Sharm_el-Sheikh_shark_attacks the 'conspiracy angle' attributed to the governor was shown to be one throwaway remark on live television that was used by sensationalist media. The article is a mishmash of information that is largely not notable. un☯mi 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - article definitely needs some work (and a new title), but the subject of (alleged) Israeli Animal use in Espionage does appear to me to have received reliable source coverage: [2] [3] [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrsdogg (talk • contribs)
- Delete, a combination of 2 events, neither of which is particularly notable, being used in a slanted article. Prodego talk 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - low notability sensationalist POV nonsense. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- keep Notable, well sourced article.Each and every used source is a reliable one. I did not combine the events in the article myself. All the sources have them combined already.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations - the event is verifiable, well-sourced, and Reliably sourced. However I believe that the event is better off covered under the List article, as opposed to being a stand-alone article (I also would be interested in seeing how many 'Keep' votes there would be if the "[country] being disparaged" was Israel, but that's another kettle o' gefilte fish...). The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong keep The article is well sourced. Although each event might be not notable by itself, the combination of all of them together, and a tendency of creating wacky conspiracy theories against Israel in Arab countries is notable and is discussed in all the sources. The only reason the article was nominated for deletion is I just do not like it, and this reason is not good enough to delete the article. Broccolo (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The article is title is clearly wrong and should be renamed something along the lines of "Mossad Animal Use Conspiracy Theories." This subject -- accusations of Israel making use of animals for malicious purposes - is, as a whole, covered by a variety of reliable sources. If somebody here can't deny that, then the subject clearly merits an article. And I would like protest the gross personal attack and lack of good faith demonstrated on the part of NickCT. As Broccolo says, this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that "animal use conspiracy theories" are a notable subdivision of "Mossad/Israel conspiracy theories" - the article's a loosely related collection of news pieces. I like Off2riorob's description of the article as "POV nonsense." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Merge per The Bushranger, but without leaving a redirect. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)- Rename and expand scope per cmadler. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Rename to "Arab-Israeli conspiracy theories" or some other more NPOV title, and treat it as a spin-off of List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations. But the present title, while hilarious, should not exist. cmadler (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and rename: The two incidents have been linked by quite a few reliable sources as a simple search of google news for "mossad shark vulture" will show. I agree it needs a better name, which should include other such theories. For example, this notes that Mossad has also been accused of infecting mosquitos with HIV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly rename or merge: I don't see all the POV people are talking about, and personally thought it was a fun read. Arguments on the N basis also fail my smell test, Washington, Huffington and the BBC -- good enough for me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to ask everybody, who votes for renaming the article, please come up with a good name. No matter what will happen to this deletion request the article could be renamed right now. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not as catchy as Mossad shark and Zionist vulture (or Mossad spark and Zionist culture), but how about List of conspiracy theories in Arab–Israeli relations or Conspiracy theories in Arab–Israeli relations? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, as has been noted above: most about the "Mossad shark" is already (or should be) in the 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks-article. If we aim for 5000 trillion articles on wikipedia, then we can always have an article on the "Zionist vultures conspiracy". Sigh. Huldra (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Alleged Zionist Plots could host these two and much more (naturally, we'd need redirects from Mossad shark, Zionist vulture, Settler rats and Jewish pigs). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and rename: Arab-Israeli conspiracy theories or similar sounds good to me.Ekem (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Secret operations by Israili animals (would cover both espionage and attack uses) P.s. I've seen the US marine mammels in action. Stunning. Been walking down a dock and had one of those things go clear from pen to pen right over my head, from out of nowhere. Stunning. Really nifty what those things can do.TCO (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- The only name worthy of this non encyclopedia twaddle is , redlink deleted - the title suggested by User:No More Mr Nice Guy, such as jewish pigs - think yourself lucky I have no authority here or you wouldn't be editing in this topic area at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- See Reappropriation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- maybe I'm confused by the bad grammar, but did user Off2riorob just call a group o users Jewish pigs and suggest they have no right to edit in this topic area? 74.198.9.183 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Significant coverage in reliable independent sources means it's notable, the depth of coverage provides sufficient information for a stand-alone article, and the article does a good job of explaining the cultural context and ongoing impact. As much as I love the article title I agree it should probably be renamed, but renaming discussion can happen through the talk page, not AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge to List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations. The current title is too weird for anyone to look for, yet too narrow to allow the addition of similar events. Will Beback talk 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge to List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations. This article is a conflation of two events without any direct relation between them, and they belong in a wider list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) •
- Comment It's not a "conflation" of two unrelated events (i.e. WP:SYNTH). Several reputable sources have linked these stories together as a notable trend. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
(contribs) 23:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Content could be merged (without a redirect) into a new article about Animals in espionage, so long as the Mossad shark material doesn't overwhelm it. Or to List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations. Also, I hope the author will be asked not to create any more non-encyclopedic articles. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge to List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations. Listing the two conspiracy theories involving Arab-Israeli relations in that list makes sense to me.—Chris!c/t 23:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I cannot understand how an article could be merged in a list. It will be undue weight I believe. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - the 'Mossad shark' conspiracy theory is already adequately covered at 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks#Israel conspiracy theory. It doesn't need its own article as well, which links it together with other dubious allegations. While I accept there is a broader story here - evidently, the idea that Israel is using animals to spy on/attack Arab countries has caught on in certain areas - I'm not convinced it's a notable one. The coverage to me seems like the standard 'news of the weird' kind you get around this time of year; I don't see much serious assessment of this phenomenon in a way which would indicate long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I wish you were right, but I am afraid you are not. It (I mean conspiracy theories) are not going away any time soon. Tonight I found this site that supposedly is here "To advocate peaceful reform in the Muslim world based on democracy and human rights and to offer practical strategies for such change". The article named "Epistemology to the Muslim World" says: "Abu Toameh may not have considered the possibility that Israel’s infamous spy agency, Mossad, had found a way to train rats to infest only gentiles. There is now evidence that the Mossad has adapted this technique for use with sharks. Earlier this month at least two sharks attacked five European tourists off Sharm al-Sheik, Egypt, killing one. No Israeli swimmers were targeted by the sharks. According to the governor of Southern Sinai, Abed Al-Fadij, “We must not discount the possibility that Mossad threw the shark into the sea, in order to attack tourists who are having fun in Sharm al-Sheikh. Mossad is trying to hurt Egyptian tourism in any way possible, and the shark is one way for it to realize its plan.” and continues: "There are laughs aplenty to be found in such stories, but in the end they are quite chilling.". So as you see the Muslims themselves are concerned about the problem. No, those conspiracy theories are not going away. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- As an aside, if this is kept, it definitely belongs on Wikipedia:Unusual articles. :) Robofish (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to ossad Animal Use Conspiracy Theories. There seems to be enough RS to keep this one alive. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Info I moved the article to Conspiracy theories involving Israel. I believe this name is better than suggested Arab-Israeli conspiracy theories because even now the article has information about conspiracy theories of Iran that is not an Arab country. Later on a new theories that do not involved Arab countries could be added to the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, I cannot see any valid policy based reason for deletion, the topic is well sourced and notable. Marokwitz (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Per refs reflecting notability. Whether it should be renamed, and whether the scope should preferably be expanded, are not IMHO the issue we are !voting are here -- those are proper subjects for discussion on the article's talk page (when and if the article is kept). That is not to say that they are not possibly thoughts with legs ... just that this is not the place to determine whether they should be accepted, just whether the article should be kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as article appears to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. As a bonus, this can be a single merge destination for any and all other future articles involving allegedly Mossad-trained animals, allowing interested editors to keep that single article neutral and well-focused. (The name still needs work, but that discussion is not for here.) - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's a linguistic shame that we lost the cute dual superhero title. that said, I would restrict the content to animal theories. That's what makes it interesting and really would be undue weight if scope is broadened to a general treatment of the conspiracy theories (which could verge from the more absurd to even correct suspicsions of Mossad operations). So I bet the 9-11 stuff is covered fine on some other page and more appropriate there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)
- delete A propaganda piece which attempts, through highly selective quotation, to paint a false and misleading view of its subject. The shark attack part has already been dealt with at 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks#Israel conspiracy theory. It doesn't need a separate article of its own. The vulture part is of similarly low encyclopedic value, and linking the two together is a piece of synthesis, not allowed in the encyclopedia. While the organisations used for sourcing are generally reliable, these items are really just pieces of trivia, there for a bit of humorous entertainment and not worthy of notability. They might belong in "trivia" sections of articles, but such sections are also discouraged here. --NSH001 (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete WP:SYNTH linking unrelated conspiracy theories, each of them advanced only by a small number of people, and a striking violation of WP:NPOV. This is the third article Mbz1 created and put up for DYK in just the past month on the theme of murderous/stupid Muslims, the other two being When_we_die_as_martyrs and Flora_and_Maria.betsythedevine (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)