Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti

Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti

Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti (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)

WP:POVFORK of 2010_Haiti_earthquake_conspiracy_theories#Accusations of organ harvesting by Israeli medical teams. The "Development" section was copied directly from there without attribution. The Jenny Tonge section is covered in Jenny Tonge. This doesn't warrant a seperate article. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - agreed, this is covered in-depth, and doesn't need its own article. Addionne (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete . This article and the one related to conspiracies are all blatant lies. In particular this one is charged of antisemitism. Please delete. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm? There's a difference between articles about blatant lies and articles that are blatant lies. Evercat (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. An article dealing with a particular topic does not become a POV-fork because there's another article dealing with multiple topics including the first one. It was not explained in the nomination why this article is a POV-fork, or even which POV it supposedly advocates. None of the article was "copied directly" from the 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories article; there are a couple of paragraphs that overlap, but the vast majority of the nominated article consists of new material that was never in the other article. The 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories article is in terrible shape, and it's not clear what will happen with it, but whether it stays the way it is or improves, the Israel-related conspiracy theory already forms almost all of its content, and that part would eventually have to be spun out into a new article per WP:SPINOUT and WP:SUMMARY. Since the nominated article indisputably contains much new material, I find it peculiar that the nominator suggests deleting it and not merging it into the other article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So instead of improving the existing article, you thought you would create a new one? Why was that exactly? 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories is hardly overly long is it? By creating an entirely new article to cover just these fringe claims we give them undue weight. They are NOT widely reported and NOT notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. To act otherwise would be to advance that POV above others. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I had written most of the new article before I became aware (by chance) of the old article. I decided not to stick the new one into the old one, because that would make the old one lopsided to a comical degree and would clearly demand splitting it. The fact remains that if this article were merged into 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories, it would completely overwhelm it, and we would need to immediately split it per the first sentence of WP:SPLIT: "If... a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out". But, since you seem not to think so, I'm still wondering why you're not advocating a merge and are opting instead for the deletion of a large amount of sourced material. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the illusion that if something is sourced, it belongs in an encyclopedia. What we have here is one man's YouTube video that didn't even directly alledge organ harvesting. This dude's YouTube post was reported on by several other websites. That's it. It's not worthy of more than a couple of sentences at most. To create a whole new article implies that these allegations are either significant, widely reported on, widely held, have wider implications or are otherwise notable. They aren't. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's misrepresenting the situation. The original YouTube poster is non-notable, of course, but his post was uncritically reported on by very widely viewed media networks, was endorsed by a fairly powerful politician, and led to the sacking of another. The very fact that all this could stem from a single YouTube post by an unknown individual is highly notable, and may be unique. Do you know of any similar event? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But the article is entitled Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti not The T.West YouTube Organ harvesting incident. There are not widespread claims of organ harvesting. Did you want this article to be about organ harvesting claims or a YouTube phenomena? --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete and totally scorch this article and the conspiracy theory article from Wikipedia, as the pages are very marginally held fringe theories and coverage of them on Wikipedia brings the project into disrepute. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• The conspiracy theory is a notable topic, since it was advocated or considered by important people and groups. It also led to the removal of Baroness Jenny Tonge from her post. Covering conspiracy theories will not bring Wikipedia into disrepute as long as it speaks about them in line with the WP:NPOV and WP:DUE policies. This would seem to be confirmed by the fact that Wikipedia has dozens if not hundreds of articles on conspiracy theories and has not yet been brought into disrepute - at least not by those articles. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, you misunderstand me. Just covering the theories brings the project into disrepute. Everyone who has parroted this fringe theory is a known anti-Semite and would blame the Israelis for destroying the Palestinian rocket industry if they ever worked a peace plan out. To even cover it on Wikipedia would violate NPOV as it would give the appearance that this is a notable conspiracy theory, when it's not. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic canard, but it's a notable topic because a lot of powerful people believed it. The fact that people could believe something so ridiculous is part of what makes it notable. The situation here is similar (though of course there's a difference of degree), since the theory appeared on Al Jazeera and was endorsed by Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing The Protocols, one of the most infamous antisemitic canards in history, to a conspiracy theory thrown together by a bunch of demagogues who can't comprehend Israel not being worse than Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mugabe, Kim Jong-il, Nixon, and Mao combined? Something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia if your argument is accepted... then again, I've known that for ages. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? The Protocols were also written by "a bunch of demagogues". It doesn't matter who invented it, what matters is what happened with it after it was invented. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And nothing of note happened with this after it was invented. Had a few anti-Semites jump on the bandwagon, but other than that, nothing of note. It's not like The Protocols, which have been repeatedly used to justify millions of religiously-motivated crimes against Jews. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)