Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Internet Defense Force (3rd nomination)

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. After discounting contributions of editors ineligible to contribute, we have a majority but not a consensus for the view that the sources are sufficient for an article. A procedural closure of the AfD would have the same effect, but I don't think that this would be appropriate given that there are multiple legitimate opinions. Sandstein 20:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Internet Defense Force

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This group falls short of WP:SUSTAINED. All reference coverage is from 2008, with one small thing from 2009, apart from primary sources and blog entries. Group is not notable over a brief period and not ven active in years. Good times charlie, he walks like this (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC) This user is not allowed to vote in AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was always a negligible organization and now it is even more negligible. I suspect it consists of only one or two people who had a good laugh when they were taken seriously for a month or two. These days they only exist to collect donations. Zero^talk 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes on WP:GNG. Founded by a rabbai — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC) This user is not allowed to vote in AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Wikipedia is not a place where internet trolls should be legitimised. Their Alexa rank is 4 million (in other words, their website has next to zero relevancy on the web). Amin (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)This user is not allowed to vote in AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Shrike (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Politics and propaganda is the last thing we all want to see here, in Wikipedia, the-huge-community. God bless all the jews Amir R. Pourkashef 13:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Amir R. Pourkashef(talk)This user is not allowed to vote in AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The group had already attracted international media attention as shown in the article, and all-in-all, the article is well-cited with reliable sources from news websites. So long any of the crufty, promotional or non-neutral content is removed, I don't see how the article fails WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary. This article has clearly demonstrated notability through interest from international media. ~~Also I call into question the neutrality of some of the !voters above.~~ Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This AfD was started by User:Good times charlie, he walks like this, which clearly is a new user and has a single-purpose starting this deletion discussion. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, as a new account who has not yet made 500 edits nor been here 30 days, the OP is precluded from editing this article at all, and had no business proposing it for deletion. I think this whole discussion is invalid. RolandR (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changing my vote to Speedy procedural close as mentioned by other editors that the nomination breaks WP:ARBPIA3, and the nomination was no doubt spurious, as a creation by a blocked sock SPA. My reasons for keep under WP:GNG and WP:NOTTEMPORARY stands. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 01:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the other guy. Falls short of WP:SUSTAINED ("Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability"), reference coverage is from 2008, Group is not notable over ~~a brief~~ an extended period etc. Peter Damian (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEMPORARY. What do you mean by "brief burst of news coverage" as what the guidelines said, and then say "it was not notable over a brief period"? It's completely contradictory. You are telling me that it fails the policy because it was only notable briefly, and then you tell me it was not notable briefly. What are you talking about? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like @Peter Damian: made a typo. Presumably he meant group is not notable over an extended period. Blackmane (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Well-referenced. Gained international coverage and plenty of home coverage, even if short lived. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously: we do not need to have an article on every web-site started by an anonymous user. And to User:JohnTombs48: though the person behind this web-site is anonymous, it has been linked with one, shall we say, slightly "disturbed" named person, who is definitely not a Rabbi, Huldra (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It was moderately notable in the past. In retrospect, it does seem to have been a one-person operation. But then, so was Wikileaks in its early days. John Nagle (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks had an actual effect on history. What effect did this "organization" have? Zero^talk 23:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. jps (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what ways do being on CNN and international news fail WEB or even GNG? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN mention was a tiny flash-in-the-pan, vastly too trivial for WP:GNG. Almost all of the paragraph which mentions CNN has to go anyway as it is all from a self-published blog of someone who describes himself as "an authority on body dysmorphic disorder, male eating disorders and addiction"[1]. Zero^talk 05:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple non-trivial" references are the key things I am looking for. I see passing trivial references only. jps (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Have you taken a look at the articles by Haaretz, JP, the Dubai National Post, Telegraph and BBC? Those are not passing references. For all of them, the JIDF formed significant portions of their articles, and for JP and Telegraph, they were the exact subjects of the entire news articles. Did you even read those sources? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The triviality of the coverage in the sources you cite is quite self-evident to me. "Significant portions" of the articles? Not really. More of object lessons that seemed to be written by people who did not understand the internet. For the two "exact subject" articles, I found the coverage to be of the flash-in-the-pan sort. Unimpressive. Fails WP:WEB by a fairly clear margin. Not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. jps (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is not self-evident to me, and could I say, false. Maybe your idea of the internet should be without any mention of the Jewish Force, or any other Israeli hacktivism group, perhaps. I don't care about what your ideas of notable internet content is. Whatever you have said about WP:WEB is your own !vote and I couldn't care less too. But even if it fails WEB, this article still passes WP:GNG because it has clearly been sufficiently backed up by sources. The fact is that those outlets cared enough about the subject to write about it. WP:GNG clearly says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Not only is there a combination of both articles which approach the subject of Israeli/international hacktivism from a broad view before giving JIDF a specific mention, there are clearly articles from major international news outlets which gave full attention to the subject. Maybe you think they have absolutely no idea how the internet works in your mind or in fact, but they writing about it alone satisfies GNG and also WP:RELIABLE's guidelines on what reliable, published sources are. Just because you disagree with the source, doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a source. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you want to make Wikipedia into something other than a WP:MAINSTREAM WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA doesn't mean everyone else has to follow suit. jps (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's exactly my point. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and so I agree with you. That is why my vote is speedy keep (especially since this nomination is essentially a sham). Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say it scrapingly could conform to WP:WEB given some of the sources available for the site during its period of highest activity, but it definitely would not pass WP:SUSTAINED. The lack of sources since the hey day of their activities is more likely to be due to their going underground, but that's another story. Blackmane (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have started an WP:AN/I discussion regarding this AFD--Shrike (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After doing a Google search, there is certainly sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The first coverage begins in 2008 and reaches its peak in 2010. That certainly doesn't appear to be a "brief bursts of news coverage", so I don't see how it falls short of WP:SUSTAINED? --I am One of Many (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes notability requirements, and this nomination is itself suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the edit restrictions on this article is not obvious, the notice being on the talkpage only, to stop this sort of thing happening in the future, would it be appropriate for this (and similar articles) to have some sort of edit protection placed on it? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re ANI: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AFD started by ineligible editor in WP:ARBPIA area. This AfD discussion seems to fall under the terms of the general prohibition in WP:ARBPIA3:

"All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."

Please don't participate in this AfD unless you are a registered account that has been here more than 30 days and has more than 500 edits. The admin who closes this AfD should discount the !votes from anyone who is not eligible. Except for this concern, in my opinion this is a valid AfD and should be allowed to run for the normal time. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article, as I find its unfixable (due to the way this website is run) errors, glaring omissions, and completely misleading claims make a handy tutorial for what a mess Wikipedia is. There are of course countless other examples, so I will soldier on in the event of deletion. But this one is as near to perfect an example as any.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep With articles centered on JIDF or his activities in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post or CNN, notoriaty is established even if it is clear that it is not deserved. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for Administrative Close per WP:ARBPIA3. I realize this is a bit late but the OP (now blocked) was ineligible to open the AfD. Additionally there is compelling evidence that this AfD was not opened in good faith and that attempts were made to stack the deck with sock-puppetry. Finally allowing this to proceed undermines the rules. It is for essentially the same reason we almost always revert any edits from banned and blocked editors, even if they are non-controversial. This AfD represents a flouting of our rules and guidelines and should be closed forthwith. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the case for questioning the legitimacy of the AfD itself is strong, the article stands on its own based on the sources provided meeting the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicely done, well-sourced piece. I found coverage in the Telegraph article to lend support to the fundamental notability claim, which has already been affirmed at AfD. Notability is not temporary, etc. Carrite (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that should be an obvious and uncontroversial decision...not sure why it was nominated again. --Fixuture (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2016 (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.