Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art student scam

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 no consensus, by both vote count and argument-weighting. That said, there is a fair consensus that the article is in need of a good amount of work again, and such work will be necessary to avoid future deletion discussions. Best regards to all, and thanks especially for a largely civil discussion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Art student scam

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam

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 Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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: "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [the changes made in the rewrite] 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)

• comment There's nothing notable in that article, only tabloid rumors picked up by few sensation hungry newspapers. Nobody ever got convicted. I read that those 5 Israelis, who were arrested on September 11 were put in the same room with few Pakistani Muslims. They agreed to declare a hunger strike together to protest the arrest. Many innocent people were picked up on September 11, yet the article talks only about Israelis. If mainstream media has more garbage about Israel than about all other countries combined, it does not mean all that garbage should be added to Wikipedia. That article was written with the only purpose to smear Israel. As user:Jimbo Wales admits "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around". It ought to stop!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The allegations are backed my numerous reliable sources. The users voting to delete this are acting in political coordination to delete reliably sourced information because of WP:idontlikeit.
• http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Haaretz
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1387069/US-arrests-200-young-Israelis-in-spying-investigation.html The Telegraph
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation The Guardian
• http://www.heraldscotland.com/five-israelis-were-seen-filming-as-jet-liners-ploughed-into-the-twin-towers-on-september-11-2001-1.829220 Sunday Herald
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/ Insight

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

• http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html Salon.com
• http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html Janes Intelligence
• http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Creative Loafing
• http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
• 20 minute Four Part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about Allegations of Israel Spying on the United States
• http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/8/cheering_movers_and_art_student_spies Democracy Now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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. Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

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 Wikipedia 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)

Comment Please look here Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested. I do not know, if this article will get deleted, or not, but the user should be topic banned.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales page is the most neutral on wikipedia. It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm still thinking about how to !vote on this. In the mean time, I suggest that people read Wikipedia:Notability (events) as the most relevant guideline. Also trying a few different google phrases coudl help. ThHe first three google scholar hits with this search http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=DEA+Israeli+%22Art+student%22+&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2001&as_vis=0 do get results that are relevant. None of the three consist of material published by academic journals or presses though one comes out of Project Censored which is university-based though controversial.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep- it meets WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Many of the deletes are applying the wrong criteria. NPOV and COATRACK are not really basis for deletion, they're basis for improving the article. Seems there is slow-burning edit war over POV, but that is not a reason to delete the article. Minor4th 19:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not the only basis for deletion. Please see my comments above referring directly to the deletion policy.Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment So many accounts saying "Its not about notability, but rather IDONTLIKEIT." Thus they agree it is a notable subject. Edison (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Per Lucky. This article looks way too much like a platform for some nasty, fringe, non-notable OR conspiracy-mongering. IronDuke 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Ynhockey and Mbz1 Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep and restore to its "sane state" per Hans Adler. I appreciate Cptnono's point of view, and it would certainly be easier on all of us to just delete the article, but I'm not eager to delete verifiable, at least marginally noteworthy subject matter (as reflected in the judicious version that Hans Adler produced during the prior AfD) because of specific editorial problems that could be addressed in a more direct way.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The topic is notable and supported by many reliable sources that mention "Israeli art scam" or "art scam" in the article headlines, not as some incidental comparison. AfD is not a way to deal with some edits you don't agree with. Revert it to the last version that survived an AfD if you like (which the nominator didn't sound like he found to be deletable) - argue out the details on the talk page or in mediation, but don't settle content disputes by mutual assured destruction. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The last version had been whitewashed and the focus had strangely shifted from being about spying allegations in the u.s. to an almost unnotable chinese tourist trap. 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.

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to endorse a particular version, but only to emphasize that this is a content dispute, and your opponents have a very straightforward remedy available to them that doesn't involve deletion. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong keep - (Disgraceful Preciseaccuracy conspiracy theories/Jimbo canvassing aside), the topic is for sure notable as shown by coverage by multiple RS. None of the arguments given for deletion seem to comply with our deletion policy which requires us not to delete if something can be fixed by editing. Which is certainly the case here, as the very nominator and delete !votes agree. --Cyclopia^talk 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I wonder, if users, who voted to keep bothered to read the links I provided about the opinion of the administrator, who has done research on the sources provided by Preciseaccuracy on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard by her request? Here's one more time: 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.". There's nothing to be fixed there. That article is a disgrace and should be deleted. Here's the document that describes 9/11 conspiracy theories involving Jews and Israelis including the story about art students scam see page 18. The name of the document is: "Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" So, the question is: should an article that is yet another Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory be kept on Wikipedia? The answer is: No! --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that the allegations are true. I am saying that they are notable. should an article that is yet another Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory be kept on Wikipedia? The answer is: yes, if it is a notable conspiracy theory. --Cyclopia^talk 01:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but then it should be written as it is in the document I linked to. It should be added to the right categories, while taking out of the wrong ones. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That is OK but it has nothing to do with article deletion, since it can (and should) be dealt with editing. --Cyclopia^talk 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I assume that you would not mind changing the name of the article with accordance to the name of the document I linked to (Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Art students spying ring), just to call the things with their real names, you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your twisting the argument mbz1, this article is about spying allegations, not 9/11 conspiracy theories or urban myths.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your twisting the argument PA, this article is about a con, not spying allegations. That was done according to consensus. But if it were about spying allegations then it being called a myth (which I did adjust per your argument) and the 9/11 conspiracy theory is part of it.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't done by consensus. As fences said ". And we are not bound by what people argued at that AfD; many of the deletion arguments were based simply on WP:INDONTLIKEIT. The arguments that attempt to dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" and brush it under the carpet should not be given weight. The spying allegations are what really made this scam notable; it barely scrapes notability without it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_student_scam&diff=376834714&oldid=376830608

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Mbz1, you're referring to Haaretz and The Forward as bastions of antisemitism? Your reliable source is the adl, a political organization that claims to fight defamation but is currently trying to get a muslim mosque banned from new york? http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am quoting the RS document I linked to.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The adl is a pro-israeli-advocacy group. Of course they are going to deny the allegations that Israel was spying on the United States. The other sources refer to the spying allegations as inconclusive. The guardian, telegraph, sunday herald, haaretz, the Forward ect. are not outlets for antisemitism. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push any conspiracy theories. The inconclusive allegations shouldn't be referred to by the derogatory version of the word conspiracy theory. The sources treat the spying allegations in a very serious manner and at the very least as inconclusive. but once again this is what the wikipedia article looked like before I began editing, an article about spying allegations had been twisted to being an article about a chinese tourist trap where the allegations were described as an urban myth without any qualifiation http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There's altogether too much thinking going on here. This is Wikipedia, where very basic logical deductions are liable to be denounced as "original research". AfD is not supposed to be some kind of star chamber where people figure out Which Side Is Right, what is the True Truth, or how paranoid is too paranoid. Wnt (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The article is about notable allegations of espionage supported by many reliable sources. Have a separate article about the student paintings scam. RomaC ^TALK 01:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The adl is referring to Haaretz and the Forward as outlets for conspiracies? Take this quote from Haaretz describing Washington post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey, on September 11, of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly." Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Definite Keep The subject at hand appears to definitely be notable and i'm really not seeing WP:SYNTH happening here, as conglomerating different examples of things that are labeled art scams (involving supposed art students) isn't synthesizing anything at all. The separate instances are clearly shown to be involving the main topic. Silverseren^C 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - The article seems to be much better sourced than most Wikipedia articles... its is loaded with references. The NPOV tag seems, to me, to be politically motivated, perhaps someone doesn't like it... in any case, we should never delete such thoroughly sourced articles. The section about the alleged Israeli spy ring should probably be moved to a separate article, since it's not really about an art scam per se. After it is moved, it probably ought to be added to the list of Israel\Palestine articles under the I/P General Sanction. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The espionage allegations are very much related to the art scam because that scam was carried out on such a huge scale that it caused the conspiracy theory. They were reported by some major papers, but only by a few and only temporarily. Treating them as minor matter in the context of the ongoing scam is perfectly adequate and gives them just the right weight, even though the conspiracy theorists obviously don't like it. Hans Adler 12:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop calling it a conspiracy theory. You're poisoning the well. This is entirely from mainstream sources reporting what they were told by the DEA and other government sources. Just because you think it's a conspiracy theory doesn't make it one. Fences&Windows 13:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop saying somebody is poisoning the well. It is a conspiracy theory blown out of the proportions by a sensation hungry media, who is always ready to go after an easy target, one of the smallest countries in the world.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Fences and windows. This does not appear to be a conspiracy theory as the allegations are established by US Federal Govt. Agencies. This satisfies the Verifiability policy. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That is the issue here. This conspiracy theory has been picked from a bunch of sources and this article virtually turned into a glorified post at rense.com. --Luckymelon (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Fences and Windows: No, I won't stop calling it a conspiracy theory because by sorting all sources I could find at the time of the first AfD chronologically I came to the conclusion that it is a conspiracy theory. The original suspicions were of very poor quality and were misrepresented in early reports in December 2001, near the climax of "security" hysteria. This easily explains the otherwise strange fact that a small number of reputable media reported these suspicions but most of them completely ignored them. When journalists can't confirm a story they are supposed to shut up, and in most though not all cases this seems to have worked.

The "DEA report" that started everything can be found here: [1]. The incidents reported there are entirely consistent with widespread criminal operations targeting wealthy neighbourhoods and offices of well-paying employers. Some highlights from that report:

• "Another incident involved an Israeli art student who attempted to sell paintings at the residence of S/A Michael Durr in Flower Mound, Texas, on March 25, 2001 at approximately 17:30. S/A Durr was slightly delayed and when he opened the door the art student had already departed and was approaching another house. S/A Durr called the Flower Mound police department, which responded. The art student was identified as David SUSI, W/M, DOB 01/09/1975, who was staying at an unspecified location in Irving, Texas. The student was not detained."
• "one of the Israelis (not identified in the report) stated that five individuals in Israel were responsible for recruiting Israeli nationals to come to the U.S. for the purpose of selling art door-to-door. The detainee identified "ITAY' who lives in California, (subsequently identified as Itay SIMON), as the direct link between the five persons in Israel, and the U.S. operation. The detainee stated that the Texas contact for the organization is "Michael", who lives in the Dallas area and drives a black Jeep. The detainee stated that Michael (CALMANOVIC), is subordinate in the art-vending scheme to Itay (SIMON)."
• "BEN DOR stated he works for NICE, a software engineering company in Israel. BEN DOR stated he served in the Israeli military on a unit that was responsible for Patriot missile defense. During a search of BEN DOR's luggage a printout from a Windows readme file named "WinPOS-53-readme" was found that has some reference to a file named 'DEA Groups'." (NOTE: RWE Dea AG, formerly DEA, is a reference customer for a product that includes the WinPOS point of sales software. See also NICE Systems.)
• "A Vehicle Technician at the Detroit Division reported that during the fall of 2000, a female appearing to be either Jewish or Arabic in her twenties visited her home in Southfield, Kentucky in an attempt to sell her artwork. The Vehicle Technician declined to purchase any paintings and the female left. The Vehicle Technician said it appeared the female was going door to door."
• "On Wednesday April 2, 2001 at approximately 8:00 PM one of two individuals rang the doorbell of the residence of a DEA Special Agent Wayne Schmidt in Duarte, California. Upon answering the door, the S/A observed the two individuals walking away from the residence and walking toward an adjoining neighbor's residence. Upon exiting the residence, the S/A observed that both individuals, a male and a female, were at the neighbor's front door and stated that they were "Israeli art students", The neighbor advised them she was not interested and both left the area walking south on foot." (A detailed explanation of fruitless DEA activity follows.)

So these spies apparently went to the trouble of seeking out the homes of random DEA staff, rang their doorbells, but in several instances didn't have the patience to wait for someone to open, instead proceeding to other potential scam victims. Maybe the following is the best illustration of the extent of the totally unprofessional hysteria:

• "Aran OFEK stated that his father was a retired two-star general in the Israeli Army. (NFI). (ISP note: Israel recently launched its 5th spy satellite, identified as the OFEK 5. It is unknown if the name of the satellite and these persons is related.) "

"ISP" appears elsewhere in the document and seems to refer to "InternalSecurity Program". "Ofek" is Hebew for "horizon". (I had to remove a link to a site on Hebrew names because it is blacklisted. It's the first Google hit for Hebrew+Ofek.)

This is how it all started, and based on that it's not surprising at all that DEA officials later said there is nothing to see here, and that the reporting in reputable media simply stopped. The matter has since been embellished further and has become an example of an antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theory in several books I foundon Google Books. Hans Adler 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm frankly disgusted at this nomination, these editors are POV pushing to ridiculous lengths. The attempts to sweep this incident under the carpet are blatant attempts at political censorship. They failed to label this as mere gossip and to keep articles like that from Salon out of the article, so they want to delete it. This is obviously notable, it gained substantial coverage in multiple sources over an extended period. The claim that this is simply conspiracy-mongering is a total misreading of the sources. This is not an "anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theory" (nice use of the label "anti-semitic" to try to sway this), it is an account of a scam (called the "Israeli art student scam" by most sources except Wikipedia), and how this scam might have been used as cover for an espionage operation. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion, but that's all the deletion arguments amount to. You simply don't like something that possibly reflects poorly on Israel. If it had been Iran or China accused of this you'd not be arguing for deletion. Fences&Windows 13:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep It is no small irony that the purported 9/11 connection information was inserted by one of the editors who now wants the whole thing deleted. The article seems well sourced and seems to establish a notable series of events, other perceived issues can be resolved through collaborative editing. Unomi (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Cptnono and ynhockey and WP:SNYTH. Perfect example of how one editor can hijack WP by grabbing bits and pieces, sourced albeit, and write a piece that does not appear anywhere else. If this really was worthy of an article, three sentences would be needed to summarize points from these sources, not building an article from nothing. --Shuki (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: The nomination states no valid reasons for deletion, and there appear to be reliable sources to be cited, regardless of current article quality.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep We do not accommodate vandals. We should not delete an article just because vandals may "hijack" it in the future -- if we did that, we wouldn't have any articles at all. If a subject is notable (as this seems to be) it should be kept and any content disputes should be discussed on the article's talk page. If any sources are to be questioned, they should be questioned/discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard (which is being done). Perhaps it should be renamed, but that is another question entirely.  Chickenmonkey  06:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The article was ostensibly going to be re-written and now has reverted as a magnet for conspiracy theorists and propagandists. Its notability os questionable at best, missing at worst (see Mbz1's comments among others), has only been used to coatrack propagandists, and has not proven it is notable inits own right and that it can remain neutral. The prevelence of OR, well-poisoning, synthesis, etc. renders this article unfit for the encyclopedia. Avi (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - the article may need some work, but the topic itself appears to be notable and reliably sourced. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep- no policy violation was cited in the nomination...this appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are sufficient reliable sources in the article to show notability. Also, as no one else has linked it: Wikipedia is not censored. I don't understand the purpose of deleting an article if it's not fully NPOV...it ought to be fixed...and deletion isn't the fix. It's unfortunate that its taking so much time from User:Preciseaccuracy to keep this article from going into the abyss of the memory hole. It does appear to be that there may be a cabal after the user...this is a most unwelcoming development.Smallman12q (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the article should be forked to Israeli art student scam.Smallman12q (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - conspiracy coatrack, utter un-encyclopedic twaddle. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is an unencyclopedic article and is simply being used by Israeli bashers to try to find another reason to bash. It is nothing but rumors and allegations. Actually I heard that these Israeli students were actually going door to door getting them to sign a petition claiming that falafels are Israeli and not Arab. Then if the people refused to sign, they murdered them and stole their organs and sold them at high profits to Jews in Israel. KantElope (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Fences and windows. Problems with the article can be addressed other than by deletion. --John (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest John, what problems do you see with the article as it is? Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Article clearly establishes notability via several reliable sources. A bad-faith nomination in the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT vein that has plagued the likes of the Israeli apartheid article over the years. A band of like-minded editors who seek to delete what they cannot water down. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - If it was fixed once it can be fixed again. The deletion arguments here seem to stem from problems with the article as it is currently written, not problems with the topic itself. cmadler (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per IronDuke. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Brewcrewer, User:Avi. Or consider renaming to Art student conspiracy theory on the pattern of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories. If we cannot keep conspiracy theorists from posting material of this type, the responsible thing to do is to make clear that this is a conspiracy theory directed at members of an ethnic minority.AMuseo (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitic canard another option is to move the spy-ring material to Antisemitic canard. This is what was done with a short-lived Whikpedia article accusing Isrelis of murdering victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake in order to harvest and sell their organs.AMuseo (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Yesterday I contacted a public relation official from DEA. I asked her, if their agency knows anything about Israeli spies, who pretended to be art students. She sent me email, in which she said: "I have heard that this is false, an urban legend, and that none of this ever took place." How wikipedia could keep an article that is nothing by the gossips?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is why we disallow original research in this project, so we can avoid underhanded "so-and-so told me this, so it must be true!" maneuvers. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per Ynhockey. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be a lot of coverage, and some of it from top end media sources. this may need some work but it appears to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep As I posted back in March 6th in the previous AFD, Ample news coverage in the countries affected, and notable government agencies have commented on it. Dream Focus 17:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Well, looks like that article is going to be kept. It will make a nice addition to other Wikipedia's articles on the subject of smearing Israel: Israel and the apartheid analogy and Racism in Israel and so on. It is just like another United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 that was accepted only to get reverted few years later. Oh well...--Mbz1 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree... the article is only about the subject as presented by reliable sources and per WP:V, this is correct. Perhaps other news articles will appear stating that these stories were false or based on incorrect information, at which time we can update the article and rewrite it with the pertinent info. Wikipedia is not smearing any country or people as we are only presenting what has been reported by reliable sources. There is no anti-Israel conspiracy here. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are entailed to have your own opinion, as I am entailed to have mine. I know at least one user, who shares it. Few days Jimbo wrote wikipedia has anti-Israeli bias.

About the substance. I agree there was some noise in the news, some of which were RS, about the incident, but later it was denied in the strongest terms possible, nobody ever got convicted. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Diff to Jimbo's comment? Silverseren^C 18:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That was awesome. I was about to ask him about the particulars but decided to leave it alone. He also isn't the glorious leader of Wikipedia so it doesn't mean that much. I believe it was on is talk page during the discussion the Preciseaccuracy started over there while shopping this issue around. Anyone recall exactly just so we don't have to go through a week of diffs?Cptnono (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The link to Jimbo's comment I was talking about: "if anything, we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around"--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding his comment. What he meant was that both sides are biased and that it was just as likely for Wikipedia to have a "anti-Israeli bias" as it was for it to have a pro-Israeli bias. In truth, we have both, which is what makes our articles able to be neutral, as both sides have to come to compromises that show both sides, which is the definition of NPOV on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 20:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to argue with you about the meaning of the comment, but the link is here for everybody to see, and to make their own opinion what Jimbo meant. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably best. I don't see how Silver seren can read it that way but it doesn't matter that much anyways.Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Who cares what Jimbo meant? A "cursory look" forms his opinion. An opinion that can be demonstrated as false with a large number of examples. JIMBO SAID as an argument can best be summed up as "I dont have an argument". nableezy - 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as being a mish-mash of novel syntheses and trivial press reporting. When the trash is thrown out there's nothing left here. One sentence if we try hard. "Art student scam(s): scams by art students or persons purporting to be art students, for example (1) (2)". That could quite happily live in some other article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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.