Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 21 October 2016

Jewish Internet Defense Force

• Articles for deletion/The Jewish Internet Defense Force
• Articles for deletion/The Jewish Internet Defense Force (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Jewish Internet Defense Force (3rd nomination)

Jewish Internet Defense Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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)

• 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 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

*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)

* Delete Misplaced Pages 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)

* Delete Politics and propaganda is the last thing we all want to see here, in Misplaced Pages, 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)

• 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 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 15:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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)

• 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 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

• keep. Well-referenced. Gained international coverage and plenty of home coverage, even if short lived. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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

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

• In what ways do being on CNN and international news fail WEB or even GNG? Optakeover 05:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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". Zero 05:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"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)

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 02:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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

• 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)
• Keep - Passes notability requirements, and this nomination is itself suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• 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)

• Comment re ANI: See Misplaced Pages: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)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates