Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli 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.

Although there is a large numerical majority of opinions to delete the article (according to the automated count, which is probably off), this does not amount to a consensus for deletion for the following reasons.

The article has been rewritten intensely during this AfD, notably by Hans Adler on March 9 and 10. These changes have substantially stuck so far. They 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.). Much or all of the content that caused these objections is now gone.

All of this leads me to believe that most of the "delete" opinions are not very useful for determing whether there is current community consensus to delete the article in its present form. The comments registered after the rewrite, moreover, strongly indicate that there is no current consensus for deletion. Accordingly, this discussion is closed as yielding no consensus.

The renaming that is also proposed in conjunction with the rewrite has also received widespread agreement from those that have commented on it, but there's no pressing need to determine here (which would be difficult) whether it has a positive consensus. The rename can occur (and, if need be, discussed) through the normal editorial process.  Sandstein  22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli art student scam

Israeli 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 seems to be a collection of rumours building up to a claim that bogus art students were somehow connected with 9/11, with all the linkings being WP:Original research and innuendo. It has also been aggravated by an editor on the other side of the IP-battleground adding anti-Palestinian allegations. Peter cohen (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the 9/11 stuff has now gone. I still think there is coatracking going on. Most of the article is about the spying allegations and not the scam. Although the text does admit in places that a lot of this stuff is doubtful, you get sentences such as "Rather than selling art, these Israelis were working in kiosks in shopping centres across America selling toys. The FBI was investigating the kiosks as a front operation for espionage activities." in the text. If it doesn't involve selling art, why is it even mentioned in the article?
The Forward article contains material from Chip Berlet dissecting the rumours and makes it clear that the Canadian business could no way be regarded as anything to do with spying. However, evenjust covering it in the spy allegation gives space to WP:FRINGE theory and per WP:DUE this whole lot is unbalancing the article.And most of the material all seems to go back to the one report by a DEA official which has received a certain amount of rubbishing. Of course, allies do spy on each other, but the amount of space in an article supposedly covering a fraud ring given to what are the theories of one disgruntled individual who does not work for an intelligence agency but rather for a drugs one is WP:COATRACKing.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the deletion discussion of a different article on the same topic so that the comments relevant to the topic (and not the old article) can be reviewed:

See previous deletion discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_students AMuseo (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The article that Amuseo is referring to is an unrelated, inferior article that happens to share the same broad topic area. Please do not use it to judge the current article in question. Factsontheground (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Factsontheground believes AMuseo's statement is misleading and unrelated. That is of course subjective. Its reasoning for deletion of this current article can of course also be questioned. User talk:Factsontheground#Removing the comments of others Cptnono (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is yet another discussion now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refactoring of another user's comments on a project page. Factsontheground, I will be much less polite if you delete my comments in the future. Cool and on the same page?Cptnono (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious to me how many people who have commented in this subthread have actually seen the previous article. I have asked User:Mailer Diablo, the admin who closed the previous afd as delete about how similar the two articles are. His reply was "The topic is the same, but the material and sources in both versions of the article are substantially different." For this reason some of the comments at the previous afd (e.g. about whether the topic is encyclopaedic) will be relevant, while others (e.g. about how the previous article was written) aren't.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It matters to this AfD if the article is related but striking an others comments is inappropriate so don't do it.Cptnono (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have had absolutely no problem if Amuseo had said "here's the deletion discussion of a different article on the same topic" so that the comments relevant to the topic (and not the old article) could be reviewed. Unfortunately he didn't. Factsontheground (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

art student break 1

art student break 2

  • CommentThere's not even a category, so on what basis is this article legitimate? The article is evidently mainly a fork for the conspiracy theory that art students were involved in 9/11. But, if more sources can be brought to show that this scam is really a phenomenon, involving only Israelis, and not just something that happened a few times, then it might be okay. As long as the spy stuff is given UNDUE, Delete. Me thinks that though that even after removing the spy stuff, this 'scam' is not really encyclopedic. --Shuki (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says these con men are Israeli? The title of the article is "Israeli Art Student Scam", but if you actually read the articles, a different picture emerges. The Seattle article calls them people "claiming to be Israeli art students." the Australia article says "people posing as Israeli art students" and the canada article describes "a con artist, who claimed to be an art student from Israel." No actual Israelis are identified in any of these articles. Certainly, none was arrested. Now, art scams are a very popular activity. Certainly, there is a scam going on in which the scammers claim to be Israeli and claimm to be art students. and claim to be selling art that was created by Israeli artists. But there is no evidence that there are actual Israelis involved. Unless there is proof that the con men are actually Israelis, the article is defamatory.AMuseo (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have cmoved the title to Alleged Art Scam by unidentified, self-described Israeli art students for the sake of accuracy, since this is all that the sources support.AMuseo (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your article move is a clear disruption, please don't do that again. Read the Salon article (above link) - many of these people were Israelis, were not art students, and were subsequently deported. GregorB (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One article from Salon? That's your proof? what about this article from the Seattle Times that calls the whole thing untrue? [[1]] or this one [2] this entire article is defamatory and based on a web of conspiracy theories. This is merely using Wikipedia for purposes of ethnic defamation.AMuseo (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used Salon as "proof" of the spying affair theory being notable and backed by RS, not of being true. The viewpoint of the sources you provide should also be presented in the article, and in fact it already is, in no less than two sections: one for Canada, one for the US. GregorB (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article treats a debunked conspiracy theory as though it is plausible and reliably sourced. And it is a deliberate defamation of an ethnic group. Shall we also create articles on Gypsy horse thieves, Blacks who pretend to be collecting for charity scams, Palestinian West-Bank-based auto-theft rings and Martians who scam innocent Americans into believing in Martians? All of these could be supported by more and far more reliable evidence than the present article. All would reek of vile ethnic stereotyping and race-hatred. As this article does.AMuseo (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claim of "deliberate defamation" is itself defamatory unless it's backed up by evidence. GregorB (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Israelis are a nation, not a race or an ethnic group. GregorB (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable as evidenced by the multiple reliable sources that have discussed it. AMuseo has pointed out that other articles discount the facts as presented in the article at the moment, if that's the case then they should edit it to make it clearer that other sources doubt the authenticity. Things don't have to be true to be included in Wikipedia, just notable. Smartse (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

art student break 3

  • Keep. There is no doubt that the scam part of the article is notable; you merely need to do a google search to find literally hundreds of complaints and official warnings from police departments not to buy these paintings. Factsontheground (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the espionage section, far from being "innuendo" and "original research" the claims have been taken seriously and reported positively by Salon.com, The Sunday Herald and leading military publisher Jane's. Even the media that presents the espionage claimes in a less credible light such as Haaretz and Forward Magazine do not outright dismiss the possibility as "rumor" and "innuendo" but present both sides of the story and mention the _official reports_.
  • Which brings me to my next point, if you read the article you'll be aware that the main primary sources that are being reported on by media sources are a leaked 60 page report from the Drug Enforcement Agency and an official warning from the US Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive. On what planet are such official documents "rumor" and "innuendo"?
  • The September 11 allegations are more quesionable than the other espionage claims but they are still notable enough to be reported on by major world media such as Die Welt and Le Monde. I would be happy to have the small 9/11 parts removed if that is the main reason people are rejecting the rest of the article.
  • I find it interesting that so many editors who oppose this article are resorting to disruptive edits and moves. It suggests that they are responging in an emotional rather than logical manner. Please stop it, okay?
  • Claims that this article is defamatory or anti-Jewish are utterly undefendable unless you also believe that Haaretz and Forward Magazine, who have also provided similar coverage to these very same allegations, are anti-Semitic. Factsontheground (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post and New York Times dismiss the rumors in the report you hold in such high regard as unfounded. Factsontheground does not mention these, but writes as though it was only Jewish newspapers that dismiss these rumors. As to the findings of the report that the Israelis allegedly under investigation had been in the military, I remind you that all Israelis serve in the military. And it is the custom for them to travel abroad after they get out and work as clerks in kiosks while they travel. I submit that if there was a shred of reliable evidence to these allegations, there would be a swarm of reporters covering it. Can you imagine? Israelis sending agents discuisesd as art students to penetrate American intelligence? What a story! It would be everywhere! There would be a United Nations investibgation! Ralph Nadar would issue a statement! Instead, after the smattering of coverage in Europe and on Salon.com, there is one story each in Haaretz The Forward and the Washington Post saying it didn't happen, the New York Times refusing to dignify it with an article because they investigated and found that it did not happen, and then nothing except several years of conspiracy theories on web sites. And this is what you want Wikipedia to have an article about?AMuseo (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide links to these articles please? Unomi (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

art student break 4

  • Delete or reduce to art scam topic. As Peter Cohen rightly points out, the art scam (the nominal topic of the article) and the spying allegations appear to have nothing to do with each other; the article in its present form is thus a classic WP:COATRACK case. This goes not just for the 9/11 section, but all spying-related sections. I see no reliable source substantiating the claim that these and the art scam are in any way related; thus, even if each of them could be reliably sourced and shown to be notable, their treatment in the same article is illegitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand this objection -- the two issues are deeply connected to each other. Every article about the spying allegations makes it very clear that the perpetrators were claiming to be Israeli art students and were also engaged in the art scam. The "art students" tried to sell art to federal officials using the exact same modus operadi as the other reports of the art student scam that were being perpetrated for entirely economic reasons. For example the Salon.com article described the scam in detail:
The "art students" followed a predictable modus operandi. They generally worked in teams, typically consisting of a driver, who was the team leader, and three or four subordinates. The driver would drop the "salespeople" off at a given location and return to pick them up some hours later. The "salespeople" entered offices or approached agents in their offices or homes. Sometimes they pitched their artwork -- landscapes, abstract works, homemade pins and other items they carried about in portfolios. At other times, they simply attempted to engage agents in conversation. If asked about their studies, they generally said they were from the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem or the University of Jerusalem (which does not exist).Factsontheground (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't see this section, it's hardly my fault, because your article didn't actually describe the connection. However, the sources seem quite ambiguous and heterogenous still. One of them talks of people not peddling artworks, but selling toys at kiosks. One of them says that "there may be two groups involved, [...] One group has an apparently legitimate money- making goal while the second, perhaps a non-Israeli group, may have ties to a Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist group." I'm not seeing sources that explicitly link the spying-related reports to the scam-related reports (involving fake/overpriced art) mentioned in the first section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first you complained that the sources didn't connect the two subjects. Now that I have shown that at least one source makes the connection you want there to be an explicit mention of the connection in the article. That seems like a moving goalpost.
The NCIX report also explicitly makes the connection between the two:
If challenged, the individuals state that they are delivering artwork from a studio in Miami, Florida, called Universal Art, Inc, or that they are art students and are looking for opinions regarding their work. These individuals have been described as aggressive. They attempt to engage employees in conversation rather than giving a sales pitch...Other reporting indicates that there may be two groups involved, and they refer to themselves as "Israeli art students." One group has an apparently legitimate money- making goal while the second, perhaps a non-Israeli group, may have ties to a Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist group.
The Haaretz article also makes the connection. How many sources do you need? Factsontheground (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the NCIX report is not making a connection between the alleged spies and those who were trying to fraudulently sell cheap mass-produced prints from China as their own allegedly original artwork. The NCIX report mentions they claimed to represent a Miami studio. That's a different pattern; no allegations of a "scam" of art fraud in this context. Your article also fails to represent the suggestion in the same source that there may be several entirely unrelated groups involved. Finally, the Haaretz article is entirely derivative, just rehashing sources that you have already cited, so it can't serve as additional confirmation of anything; besides, it isn't making the connection to the commercial scam either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what the Haaretz article adds is additional evidence of notability, rather than additional facts. And while I'm still mulling over the various arguments here, I don't think there can be any doubt about the link between the "art students" and the espionage allegations. The Haaretz article itself summarizes the story as follows:
According to reports of the scandal, around 120 young Israeli citizens, posing as art students and selling paintings door-to-door, have been arrested and deported from the United States. The door-to-door sale of art works, it is claimed, was a front for a sophisticated spy ring: the students would turn up at homes and offices - especially at buildings housing federal authorities and military bases, and even went to the homes of those employed in these offices. The students attempted to form friendships with federal employees, photograph their offices, tap their phone lines and infiltrate their databases. That seems pretty unequivocal to me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing anything in there that draws a connection between these door-to-door salespeople in the US, who were suspected of espionage, and those that were found to be selling fraudulent Chinese reproductions in Australia or Canada. The article is currently claiming that this all, including the spying activities, is one single scheme. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say they are "one single scheme", it just says they are "closely related". And certainly, the relationship has been noted by the sources. For example, the Forward magazine article states that:
Over the years, government officials from the United States, Israel and Canada have all officially dismissed speculation about the ring. In one instance, an American official described allegations of spying as “an urban myth.” Despite all the media attention, no evidence has ever been uncovered proving that the operation involves anything more than college-age students, recruited by handlers in Israel, to go door-to-door trying to persuade office managers and affluent housewives to pay up to several thousand dollars for $20 paintings hammered out in Far Eastern workshops. ... Reports of the scam and allegations that it might be a front for Israeli espionage first surfaced in the United States in 2000 ... Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After recent improvements and pruning of the article, which has helped to clarify the relation between the scam and the spying allegations and put both in proper context (as of this version), I go for keep and preferably rename to Art student scam. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

art student break 5

  • KeepThe article meets notability and reliable source thresholds. The content and prose could use a lot of work but there is value in the article. I'm changing it to Rename and merge with Art student scam. I think this would address coatrack concerns while keeping the good content in that's in the current article.--Adam in MO Talk 08:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've thought about this for a bit... I'm going to say keep in this case. The article is surprisingly well-sourced and an interesting topic. I'm not sure if I detect some synthesis here or not, but I suspect issues could be resolved by renaming as the current title isn't very representative of what the article is actually about. The article does need quite a bit of cleanup and the attentions of other NPOV editors. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This tabloid-level article says more about those who traffic in such theories than about any creditable set of events in the real world. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an unsubtle coatrack. The event may be newsworthy, but it is not encyclopedia-worthy. It is hard to escape the impression that the purpose of this article is rooted in bigotry. Peacock (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:COATRACK is neither a Wikipedia policy or guideline but merely an essay that has yet to be accepted by the Wikipedia community and which may only represent a "minority viewpoint". Please make an argument based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines. And note that the WP:COATRACK essay itself does not advocate the deletion of contravening articles. Rather, it says An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate. So people who want this article deleted must at the very least argue for a lack of notability.
    • Claiming that the "purpose of this article" is "rooted in bigotry" is an unsubtle personal attack against your fellow editors. Please refrain from such attacks in future. Factsontheground (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The intention of the creator is no point for the decision. The LeMond and Spiegel articles document a international notability and even chapters of books (I know they are conspiracy fantasies but still they exist) are dedicated to theis topic.--Stone (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup While the article may need to be edited for focus, there are a number of sources which establish notability, here is one from today: [3], and google news archives has a list of sources. The issues that have been brought up seem amenable to being resolved through editing. Unomi (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Why delete? The article is not fictious! It meets the criteria. It may need some copy-editting and replacement of some expressions that seemed little biased. It may be even moved to a better title. Furthermore, it cites resources. No reason for deletion. I felt through the discussion that there is some "nationalism" (so to speak (so as not to say racism too)) around the article. As long as it cites resources, nothing is wrong I suppose. It also needs more inline cited resources and it will be all good. Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic" is meaningless in an argument, really. Basically it means "anything not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because I want it deleted". This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why you think something shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply explain what policies it breaks and how it breaks them.
    • WP:BATTLE is about the behaviour of users, not the content of articles. If Wikipedia users are going to defy behavioural norms and guidelines they will regardless of what kind of articles exist on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not delete articles just because they might "make" editors misbehave in the future. This is not Wikipedia policy and a completely invalid argument. Factsontheground (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:COATRACK. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMel (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – article is WP:COATRACK and talks about a minor conspiracy theory although it pretends to be about an "Israeli art student scam". Wikipedia is not a place to record every conspiracy theory, especially in articles that are inherent policy violations. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not really sure if those who use WP:COATRACK as an argument for deletion have actually read the essay in question. Note : An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate., I have not seen many who would argue that there are not sources which establish notability. Unomi (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The main argument of those voting delete is WP:COATRACK (for those who bothered to even make one), but a close examination of the sources cited and their contents show that this simply does not hold up. And there are more sources than those cited: I just found another source for example from Insight on the News and a program was devoted to the subject in 2007 [4] on Democracy Now. The Israeli art student spying scandal or Israeli art student scam are two possible descriptions for the same set of events. For those who deny it was a spy ring, it was just an art scam. But for those who think the art scam explanation doesn't explain the places these students chose to sell their art, and what they did while selling it, its a potential spy ring. The allegations were made, and never proven, so titling it "Israeli art student scam" is more NPOV than titling "Israeli art student spy ring". There are enough notable soruces covering his issue to warrant an article. It still needs a lot of work, but that's not a reason for deletion.
  • Note to the closing admin: Per policy, votes by those who did not bother to make policy based arguments (or any argument at all) should be discounted. Tiamuttalk 20:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations were made, and never proven, so titling it "Israeli art student scam" is more NPOV than titling "Israeli art student spy ring".
No, since the allegations were never proven, a more NPOV title would be "Israeli art student conspiracy theory". However, that's not the point. Unlike you claim, none of the sources that you provided, or, as far as I can tell, the sources of the article, link the scam with the alleged spy ring. In fact, the article itself does not make such a connection. Therefore, the WP:COATRACK argument is fairly solid and should be the basis for deleting the article. Other arguments for deletion exist, but they are not important here in light of the fact that this is an article re-created from a deleted one, which deals with a conspiracy theory that is in no way related to what the article purports to be about (an Israeli art student scam). —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like an argument for renaming the article, rather than for deleting it. If it's renamed to Israeli art student conspiracy theory, then it is precisely about what the title says, and all WP:COATRACK arguments become invalid. GregorB (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what you saw Ynhockey, many of the articles cited make a connection between the art students, their selling of fake art and spy ring allegations. Take the article in The Telegraph for example. It states:

The leaked report was compiled by the Drug Enforcement Administration after some of its offices were allegedly targeted by Israelis posing as art students. "That these people are now travelling in the US selling art seems not to fit their background," the DEA report said.
On Oct 31, the FBI and Immigration and Naturalisation Service officers arrested about 60 young Israelis in San Diego, Kansas City, Cleveland, Houston and St Louis. All had been selling toys at kiosks in shopping centres across America and the FBI is reported to have been investigating this as a front operation for espionage activities.

So its patently false to say this connection is WP:OR or that the article is coatracking them into a subject that's unrelated. That the connection is not made sufficiently explicit in our article is an argument to improve the article's contents, not to delete it. Tiamuttalk 21:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamut, you just proved my point. Even the article you posted in The Telegraph makes no connection between the cases. It talks about a conspiracy theory where Israeli art students were involved. It says that they were selling art, which is what legitimate art students do. It has nothing to do with the scam. The connection you are making is pure original research. —Ynhockey (Talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ynhockey, you seem not to reading very closely. The article clearly makes the connection between Israelis selling things at kiosks and the FBI investigating this as a front operation for espionage activities. It also says the DEA report find the activities of Israeli art students to be inconsistent wit the mere selling of art. This is an excerpt from just one article cited in our article. Others are even more explicit on the connection, as for example, the Insight on the News article, where the title alone outlines the connection : Intelligence agents or art students? The DEA and Justice Department believe there was something sinister behind unusual visits Israeli `art students' paid to employees of law-enforcement agencies. There are many more examples. Tiamuttalk 12:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamut, you have again precisely proven my point. Even if there were Israelis posing as art students who were spies (a wild conspiracy theory in itself), this has nothing to do with the scam, which talks about Israelis selling cheap art in the guise of valuable art. Please stop looking for conspiracy theories in everything, and stick to what the sources actually say. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ynhockey, are you reading the links I am providing you? I'm not looking for conspiracy theories in everything. You are not reading correctly or are urposely misdirecting your fellow editors though. The Insight on the News article I linked to above states:

*The "Israeli art students" -- so dubbed because that's how they described themselves to various law-enforcement officials when confronted -- were both male and female and, as appropriate to their ages and required under Israeli law, served that nation's military [...]
*Reports of Israeli art students calling on DEA employees began at least as early as January 2000 and continued through at least June 2001 [...]
* The stories offered by the Israeli art students "are remarkable in their consistency" insofar as they state they either are from the University of Jerusalem or the Bezalel Academy of Arts in Jerusalem." [...]
*Despite the students' claims that they had themselves produced the artwork or paintings they were offering for sale, "information has been received which indicates the art is actually produced in China."
All this is contained in official DEA documents obtained by INSIght, including one produced in early June 2001. These represent an extraordinary compilation by DEA's Office of Security Programs chronicling not only contacts of DEA personnel at home or at their offices, but also similar incidents involving employees of other agencies and the military [...]
"The nature of the individuals' conduct, combined with intelligence information and historical information regarding past incidents involving Israeli organized crime, leads IS [DEA's Internal Security division] to believe the incidents may well be an organized intelligence-gathering activity," a classified document euphemizes.
The documents do not clearly label the activities of the so-called art students as a government-sanctioned spying operation, as widely reported. But they do make clear there is a covert nature to the well-orchestrated activities. In one reference, DEA said telephone numbers obtained from one encounter with its agents in Orlando, Fla., "have been linked to several ongoing DEA MDMA [the illegal drug Ecstasy] investigations in Florida, California, Texas and New York now being closely coordinated by DEA headquarters" in Washington.

There is no synthesis in the article. The reliable sources cited state clearly that the self-identified "Israeli art students" are suspected to be operating an espionage ring. As I said earlier, its more NPOV to use the title "Israel art students scam" than it is to use "Israeli art student spy ring". While both refer to the same set of incidents, the allegation that there were spies is denied by the Israeli government among others. Its important that people here understand that the link between the art scam and the espionage ring is made by reliable sources, so it is not coatracking to include them under the current title. Tiamuttalk 12:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

art student break 6

There's no synth, the sources cited make the connections made in our article. A quick look at the sources show there are mutliple RS's so its not fringe. We have notability guidelines, and they are met for this topic. Its not for you to decide based on personal prejudicies what is encyclopedic and what is not. Tiamuttalk 21:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It really hurts my feelings when you personally critisize me like that. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the comment because I'm sorry it hurt your feelings. Can you please answer GregorB's question below? Tiamuttalk 21:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I feel much better now.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to a single instance of synthesis in the article and I'm going to delete it straight away. GregorB (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article consists of different rumors from different eras in different countries. The classic wp:synth.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:SYNTH only if these "rumors" are used to construct a conclusion which does not appear in any of the sources. ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") But which conclusion would that be? GregorB (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, surprising myself. I looked at the sources expecting to find that some garden variety con men were being confused with spies. Unfortunately, the Forward, and Haaretz, and even the Washington Post are writing about just what the article is. They're treating it as a possible urban legend, but it looks like even if it is only that, it's a notable one. --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that's the point. The question is not about whether this was actually a spy ring or not, but whether there are sufficient reliable sources which reported on the story to make it notable. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the article was about a scam done for economic purposes. Now it's about an espionage ring? Seems pretty WP:COATRACK to me. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the extensive quotes I provided you from the Insight on the News article that detail the links between the art scam and the espionage allegations, I find this remark to be incredibly disingenuous. Tiamuttalk 12:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you feel that the article name is misleading, that can be settled by simply renaming it. Surely this would not be a valid argument for deletion. (BTW, my proposal was Israeli art student fraud, which does not imply material gain as a motive.) GregorB (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insight on the News? Sun Myung Moon's Insight on the News? From the family of the Washington Times and UPI? Why would anyone think they're dealing with a conspiracy theory? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make strawman arugments. There are many other sources who discuss it as well, including Haaretz, The Guardian, Salon.com, etc. Tiamuttalk 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

art student break 7

No mainstream sources?
Jane's doesn't even mention art students. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They mention "Israeli students", and its clear from the context that they are discussing the self-same "Israeli art students". Tiamuttalk 22:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and it refers to a March 5, 2002 Le Monde article which apparently does mention art students. GregorB (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian, Telegraph and Jane's are reporting about a leaked draft DEA report regarding a spy ring, not a "scam". According to the report, they were not trying to sell mass produced paintings for exhorbiant prices in the attempt to make money. They were trying to gain access to places to gain information. The "scam" article is an obvious COATRACK. I suspect some people know that an article consisting only of "once upon a time some guy at the DEA said Israeli art students were trying to gain access to buildings but the NYT concluded the report lacked a suitable factual base" would be problematic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable conspiracy theory. Apparently, in 2001 the DEA became aware of the art student scam and suspected a possible espionage background. This was leaked in 2002. The scam has spread worldwide and is still going on today, as witnessed by numerous reports from 2009/2010. The continued existence of the scam does two things: (1) Makes it appear unlikely that the scam is related to espionage. (Any intelligence agency using this method would have had 8 years to find something less conspicuous.) (2) Keeps the conspiracy theory alive.
The best overview I have seen is the Haaretz article. [6] This is a highly respected reliable source. Add the less comprehensive Guardian and Telegraph articles, and there can be no doubt that this is a notable topic. The connection between the 2001 DEA document leaked in 2002 and the ongoing scam is not original research, as it is made very explicitly by Haaretz.
The scam should have an article in the same way that Three-card Monte has an article. Due to the strong connection that is also the natural place for the conspiracy theory. Hans Adler 17:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed my !vote after noting that the Haaretz article dates from 2002, which makes matters appear in a very different light. Now I think it's probably best for the encyclopedia to delete this article, but still think it's hard to justify based on current guidelines. Hans Adler 09:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A closing note: The person who created this article has now tried to delete my vote on the grounds that it is "topic-banned." That is false and hypocritical. An alleged art scam by people posing as Israelis in America has nothing to do with "the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."
Hey don't worry about it to much. Easy enough mistake to make with the whole "broadly construed" thing. It really shouldn't be under the topic ban so lets stay on point?Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important note. It seems the delete votes are currently in a majority. However, I have yet to see a single delete vote that isn't based on not or incompletely reading the sources and assuming that one of the two subjects of the article – the DEA document leaked in 2001 and the 2009/2010 reports of a widespread con in which the fraudsters pretend to be Israeli art students – is not well sourced, or that discussing them together is OR. This is not the case. There are other articles from highly reliable sources that deal with only one aspect or another, but we have a Haaretz article [7] that puts everything together in context. At the moment, if this is closed as delete I predict it will be overturned in deletion review as a matter of course. Hans Adler 08:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well consensus is a cruel mistress. As you said, it is two subjects. It might be better after an article (or maybe 2) can be written that is compliant with the multiple policies and guidelines mentioned above. The article is not OK for the mainspace as is. We have userspaces and I hope they will be used.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, invalid are all votes based on "rumors" or "urban myth" (because the article merely repeats what the sources say, so WP:V), WP:SYNTH (no original express or implied conclusions in the article, or at least nobody volunteered to point at one) and WP:COATRACK (COATRACK is when you tack biased content onto a legitimate subject, but again: the article is repeating what the sources say, and sources themselves discuss both the "scam thing" and the "spying thing" together, which is only natural, because the conundrum is precisely in the relation - or lack thereof - between all those disparate cases; "cure" for COATRACK would normally be to delete "biased" parts, but in this case, a "cure" like that would be ridiculous - imagine all those newspapers doing the same).
This is supposed to be a discussion, not votestacking. I expect the outcome to be keep, unless we see some better counter-arguments. GregorB (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that WP:FRINGE says Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". (See junk food news and silly season.) It is therefore a relevant question hwo many of these newspapers returned to the story more than once (i.e. regarded it as a genuinely important topic) and how many just used it for filler. In any case, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Just because something gets some press coverage does not make it an encyclopedic topic.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. By the way, unfortunately the Haaretz article is undated, but numerous links that exist on the web suggest that it appeared in the first half of 2002. The obvious pragmatic solutions to be to keep the article for discussion of the scam, and confine the conspiracy stuff including the leaked DEA document to a short section. Hans Adler 13:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. I could not detect a "lighthearted" approach in any of the sources (though I must say I haven't checked them all), and the subject is not frivolous. I presume that if the United States Department of Justice issues a statement on something, then this cannot be equated with news items such as "world's longest sausage", "cat with two heads", or the like. GregorB (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on WP:NOTE. While I may not agree with the contents of the article, it seems to me to make policy. It has several references, and as far as I have looked, they match the article. Google searches on the topic show hundreds of hits. Plus, I think the average reader would take the more fringe accusations with a grain of salt. Avicennasis @ 09:07, כ״א בְּאַדָר תש״ע (UTC)

art student break 8

  • Regarding the WP:COATRACK argument: whilst WP:COATRACK does not apply to this article, since most of the sources connect the spying with the scam, it is also important to note that WP:COATRACK is neither a Wikipedia policy or guideline but merely an essay that has yet to be accepted by the Wikipedia community and which may only represent a "minority viewpoint". Everyone relying upon the WP:COATRACK essay to justify their delete vote has failed to make an argument based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines and their vote should be ignored.
Even if [[WP:COATRACK were to be accepted as policy, the WP:COATRACK essay itself does not advocate the deletion of contravening articles. Rather, it says An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate. So people who want this article deleted must at the very least argue for a lack of notability. Which no one is doing. Factsontheground (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTE Yazan (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another editor thought this was related. I think the article in question is much different but I feel it is inappropriate to disregard it completely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_students Are we done with this back and forth Factsontheground?Cptnono (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not to create a section in the article describing the criticism of the so-called plot and the denial of it (if any sources are available)? Mohamed Magdy "Mido", Thank You! 18:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (1) Multiple independent secondary sources on the issue, including a number of mainstream sources. (2) Sources are using substantives like "espionage operation" for multiple events, indicating that they are seen as connected. (3) Some sources given in the article, including specialized expert news sources such as Jane's Intelligence Digest [8] provide an overall view, with Jane's comparing it to the Jonathan Pollard affair.  Cs32en Talk to me 

Delete Total coatrack. And yes, I read the sources. This is the kind of thing that miiiight make Jon Stewart giggle. Here is the real joke: it doesn't take much of a half-assed rumor these days to get the US security apparatus to issue warnings like, "don't let unauthorized people into buildings that require authorization for entry." If Janes finds the American response understated, I'd say there is just one too many conspiracy buffs working at Janes. And my apologies to my British friends for not paying more respect to a cherished British institution. Knowing how the media work, I don't cherish much these days. There is such a need for news to cover, news media will report on anything, as long as someone gives them a press release or with a little retouching they can copy from one another. Just because it is in the news does not make it notable (or maybe you and I are not reading and watching the same news outlets); mayyybe if it is covered by one newspaper or news channel for more than ten consecutive days, I would call it notable. I have always had mixed feelings about Wikipedia reporting the news. I am willing to grant that many news items are also encyclopedia topics. But many aint, and this is just one, er, two, of them that ain't. And what is this about a Chinese Rolex scam? You mean Rolex doesn't have a China office? I am serious! This needs investigating!! Slrubenstein | Talk 01:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • As noted above, WP:COATRACK is neither a Wikipedia policy or guideline but merely an essay that has yet to be accepted by the Wikipedia community and which may only represent a "minority viewpoint". Please make an argument based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines. And note that the WP:COATRACK essay itself does not advocate the deletion of contravening articles. Rather, it says "An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate". So people who want this article deleted on the grounds of WP:COATRACK must also argue for a lack of notability. Factsontheground (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Peter and Ynhockey. Coatrack and original source synthesis. Also, seems editors on this article are planting an excessive amount of unreliable sources with editorial comments that promote fringe positions. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, WP:COATRACK is neither a Wikipedia policy or guideline but merely an essay that has yet to be accepted by the Wikipedia community and which may only represent a "minority viewpoint". Please make an argument based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines. And note that the WP:COATRACK essay itself does not advocate the deletion of contravening articles. Rather, it says "An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate". So people who want this article deleted on the grounds of WP:COATRACK must also argue for a lack of notability. Factsontheground (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete There are a lot of reasonable arguments being made by both sides of this debate, but ultimately I think that I agree with those arguing for deletion. It is my feeling that this article is a "coatrack," a mashup of topics that may or may not be loosely related. It is not the function of an encyclopedia to conclude that an art fraud-type scam and an alleged spy ring are related; it is the function of an encyclopedia to report what reliable sources say on the subject. In the article, I see reliable sources that indicate that the scam may be notable. However, the bulk of this article is not about the scam, but about the supposedly related possible espionage ring. While the latter subject has been covered in reliable newspapers, not all that is newsworthy is necessarily notable by Wikipedia's definition. For instance, conspiracy theories about which articles are written to try and turn Wikipedia into a battleground should be strictly regulated to avoid original research. The current article has problems in both of those departments. Like Future Perfect, I think that neither the NCIX report nor the Salon.com article draw the connection between the two topics that Factsontheground sees; while the Haaretz and Forward magazine articles seem to draw the connection, I do not think those sources alone are enough to support the treatment of these two separate topics in the same article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, WP:COATRACK is neither a Wikipedia policy or guideline but merely an essay that has yet to be accepted by the Wikipedia community and which may only represent a "minority viewpoint". Please make an argument based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines. And note that the WP:COATRACK essay itself does not advocate the deletion of contravening articles. Rather, it says "An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate". So people who want this article deleted on the grounds of WP:COATRACK must also argue for a lack of notability. Factsontheground (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Coatrack There hasn't been one substantive article with respect to the spying allegations since March 2002 and in fact it has been officially refuted. There are a couple of (more) recent articles about an students selling art at inflated prices. Some of the links, such as this one [9] don't even mention "Israelis". So poorly sourced. It's fringey and more suited for a tabloid than an encyclopedia, more like spam than email. Stellarkid (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jewish Daily Forward from September 2004 is substantive:[10]. If the spying allegations are a myth, isn't it better that Wikipedia reports this based on the significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources rather than leaving the fringe nut conspiracy theorists to give their own take on it? Not liking allegations of spying being made against Israel doesn't magically make all those newspaper reports disappear. It seems like those arguing for deletion want to sweep this notable topic under the carpet. The 'coatrack' and 'synth' arguments are incorrect, as all the connections are being made in the reliable sources quoted in the article. I think this is best being kept, or perhaps merged into a wider article on allegations of Israeli spying operations. Fences&Windows 14:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, WP:COATRACK is neither a Wikipedia policy or guideline but merely an essay that has yet to be accepted by the Wikipedia community and which may only represent a "minority viewpoint". Please make an argument based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines. And note that the WP:COATRACK essay itself does not advocate the deletion of contravening articles. Rather, it says "An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate". So people who want this article deleted on the grounds of WP:COATRACK must also argue for a lack of notability. Factsontheground (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete though if this was about creative writing and imagination my vote would be a strong keep. I gotta say that it took someone a lot of creativity to come up with this idea. I also believe that unfortunately once more people become aware of this afd the article will get deleted pretty fast and all of the people who appreciate imagination and voted keep above will be disappointed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remark about "people who appreciate imagination" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines, WP:V in particular. I noticed that people in this discussion tend to reason like "Israeli spy ring exists" or (much more commonly) "Israeli spy ring does not exist", but regardless of which one you pick, it is not even wrong - this is completely irrelevant with respect to Wikipedia guidelines. GregorB (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Synthesis, coatrack, muckraking, mostly fed by anti-Israel sentiment. I am worried about Tiamut's behaviour in this deletion discussion (i.e. challenging all pro-delete votes etc). JFW | T@lk 08:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but you seem to be worried because Tiamut is using this deletion discussion for actual discussion? How is one supposed to start a discussion without challenging the votes and the arguments (or lack thereof) behind them? Why there's little if any challenge of the pro-keep votes? On the contrary, I'm worried about what looks to me like bloc voting and reliance on numerical majority. GregorB (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more thing: if accusations of "anti-Israel sentiment" are fair game in this discussion, then so are accusations of pro-Israel sentiment. GregorB (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, WP:COATRACK is neither a Wikipedia policy or guideline but merely an essay that has yet to be accepted by the Wikipedia community and which may only represent a "minority viewpoint". Please make an argument based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines. And note that the WP:COATRACK essay itself does not advocate the deletion of contravening articles. Rather, it says An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate. So people who want this article deleted must at the very least argue for a lack of notability. Factsontheground (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, WP:SYNTH only applies when you take an original source that argues A with another original source that argues B to produce C, an argument that does not appear in any of the sources. This article says nothing that is not in one of its sources so there is no "C". If there is synthesis in the article, it has to be removed immediately. Please state a single example (i.e. an original claim or a conclusion - whether express or implied - that appears in the article,Factsontheground (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

art student break 9

As pointed out early in the discussion, that was clearly a very different article to the one we are debating. Could you also point out which parts of the article are synthesised as well please? Smartse (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in this article supporting its "notability" stems from a single discredited DEA report that got a burst of coverage when it corresponded to certain publications' political views, and then disappeared from coverage once it was discredited and there was no additional evidence. I fail to see how the discussion of the earlier article could possibly be different: there's no reliable sources in this one other than the debunking, and you can't be worse than zero. So any differences are differences without a distinction. As I noted, the sourced debunking has some encyclopedic merit in the conspiracy-theory article; there's no reason for a standalone that is destined to be an orphan just so one can have a coatrack of outdated speculative journalism that was overtaken by events. Vis-a-vis synthesis, as others have noted, this article gloms together two topics to make it seem more notable than it is. Pretty clear case of WP:PUFF. THF (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The DEA report is a primary source, but there are many secondary sources that argue for the notability of this issue such as Haaretz, Forward Magazine, Salon.com, Jane's Intelligence, The Guardian and The Telegraph. Wikipedia policy is to prefer the use of secondary sources over primary sources where possible.
If you read the arguments above you can that this article is not "glomming" anything together; multiple reliable sources treat the topics of the spying and the scam as interrelated. And it obvious that they are to any neutral observer. Factsontheground (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say "there's no reliable sources in this one other than the debunking" which is categorically false. Show me the sources that "debunk" the claims instead of presenting them in a balanced fashion with both positive and negative evidence like [Haaretz]], Salon.com, Jane's Intelligence, The Guardian, The Telegraph. Why don't you think these mainstream media sources are reliable? Factsontheground (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for demonstrating my point: every single one of those secondary sources has no story unless they rely on the discredited DEA report. There's just a single non-reliable source being repeated multiple times across multiple sources and then trying to bootstrap that into reliability and notability: this is pure WP:PUFF. THF (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it propaganda exactly? As plenty of people have pointed out it has been reported by multiple reliable sources and should be included in the encyclopedia regardless of whether it is true or false or whether you like it or not. Smartse (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFD is a discussion, not a vote. You have to put together a coherent argument to delete based upon Wikipedia policy, not just say you don't like it. Factsontheground (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dealing with such fishy subjects result, at best, with a strange mix of facts and fictions (e.g., Israeli students have something or more to do with the September 11 events). This article pointed against certain people (Israelis) and therfore it only add to its dangerousity. While there are many similar scams with different people involved -we don't want to be throned to that.--Gilisa (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't understand you objections. Again, WP:AFD is a discussion, not a vote. You have to put together a coherent argument to delete based upon Wikipedia policy, not just say you don't like it. Factsontheground (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently failed to understand my simple arguments which were had nothing to do with my personall taste. Try to avoid ad hominem assertions and to keep on NPOV. Oh, and don't falsify what others write.--Gilisa (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Gilisa or Kuratowski referenced Wikipedia policy in their statements (which were purely "votes"). JFW argument has been challenged above. Factsontheground (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly not WP:NONSENSE and you are being disingenuous in making that argument. It is also not WP:OR or WP:MADEUP - it is supported by a large number of reliable sources including Haaretz, Forward Magazine, Salon.com, Jane's Intelligence, The Guardian, The Telegraph. Inserting untruths into this discussion, Izak, is not acceptable behaviour. Factsontheground (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK is an essay (not a policy or guideline that only advocates deleting articles if the topic is completely non-notable. The previous article was completely different and only shares the same broad topic as the current one. Factsontheground (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not have one clear focus, but it is not completely different from Israeli art students. Also, it is not a good idea to write articles about vague news that has attracted little media attention and even worse is to recreate such articles after they have been deleted through a community decision. gidonb (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I read the Wikipedia article and some of its major cited sources, and I don't see anything beyond the level of rumor. Our article in question conflates multiple separate topics that seem little more than conspiracy theories. Wikipedia's standard of quality, simply put, is better than this. You may make fun of all of the Pokemon articles as much as you want, but at least we know that they're true! --Cyde Weys 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truth is not a concern of Wikipedia, just verifiability and notability. As Wikpedia's verifiability policy states - "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". And it's funny that you "don't see anything beyond a rumor" when there are in fact in-depth reports about this issue in Haaretz, Forward Magazine, Salon.com, Jane's Intelligence, The Guardian, The Telegraph and official reports from the DEA and UNCIX about this issue. Factsontheground (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FotG and a couple other editors can argue every delete vote all they want. I think it is clear that the article as is cannot be allowed in the mainspace. Maybe after a little bit of TLC and direction it will be OK but until then it is just OK.Cptnono (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To delete this article from mainspace, you have to argue that there is a consensus to delete in this discussion. Good luck with that. Factsontheground (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. There is no consensus to delete. It is a good thing that admins can look past voting and see policy and guideline violations. No worries if they do not: I personally will have fun raping it because it is a terrible article.Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we should be done. The article is now in at least some compliance. Consider renaming this article and starting a new one for the espionage stuff or integrating the current content over there. Merging into preexisting articles may still be the best bet since even barley notable topics can get mention somewhere Cptnono (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But we weren't. I just got noticeboarded for the bold edit. I still think it was necessary to bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards but was asked to no do that. The article is still a giant zit on Wikipeida as is.Cptnono (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. It appears there is a well known Chinese art student scam that is very similar to this one. List of confidence tricks explains it as follows:

Art Student Scam is also very common in major Chinese cities. A small group of 'students' will start a conversation, claiming that they want to practice their English. After a short time they will change the topic to education and will claim that they are art students and they want to take you to a free exhibition. The exhibition will usually be in a small, well hidden rented office and the students will show you some pieces which they claim to be their own work and will try to sell them at a high price, despite the pieces usually being nothing more than an internet printout worth a fraction of their asking price. They will often try 'guilt tricks' on people who try to bargain the price.

The list does give an explicit reference, but there are numerous mentions of this scam on the web and I have no doubt reliable sources can be found. Therefore I am now changing my !vote as follows: Rename to Art student scam. Hans Adler 13:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse-Bazinga! We have found our solution. I have also struck out my keep and change to rename.--Adam in MO Talk 14:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done the same. This is a very good solution. GregorB (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - and rework.- Sinneed 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The conspiracy theory that this subject is mainly concerned with may be briefly mentioned in such an article, while avoiding undue weight for it. Ucucha 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heptor (talk • contribs)
  • keep but consider renaming and refocusing Clearly enough sources. However, the emphasis on spying is just ridiculous and shouldn't have more than a sentence at most. I'm not sure also that the title makes sense since the scam in question according to multiple sources is not at all uniquely Israeli. An article about the general type of scam with some discussion of this particular example may serve better. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment For those who are thinking to keep this article and rename it Art student scam, that would be appropriate only if all mentions of the so-called Israeli spy conspiracy were wiped out and only references to the various "students" selling overpriced "art" were maintained. Stellarkid (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per nom and User:THF. If the primary document is discredited and everything else simply reports on it... the key fact is that the media misreported because a report that was later discredited. To say otherwise because of the media is like claiming there were WMDs in danger of imminently being used all over Iraq. To do that is not only counter-factual, it is against the nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Oboler (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The primary document _wasn't_ later discredited. One Justice Department official claimed it was an urban legend, but the DEA, the organization that internally issued the document, has yet to distance itself or retract the document. And there is a great deal of material that does not depend on that document, such as the UNCIX report and the deportation of large numbers of Israelis. Factsontheground (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the deportations, large by what standard? And with what reasons given? That is incredibly circumstantial. I maintain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... that is the primary consideration. Not everything can or should be included... and urban myths are one of those things that don't belong. Oboler (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. More than 80% of this article (I just did a word count) is devoted to the rather absurd-sounding spying allegations. The vast bulk of the article has little to do with its purported topic (the art student scam). CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is notable and has sufficient number of reliable sources backing it. No grounds for deletion which is an excessive step. WP:COATRACK takes its strength from WP:NPOV. I do not see this article failing WP:NPOV or WP:Notability. If there are problems with the article it should be edited. I'm sympathetic to moving and renaming but the titles of many of the source articles pretty much boil down to the same combination of three components: "Israeli", "art", and "scam"/"mystery". Furthermore, let's face it, it's the spy angle that makes this more interesting. Maybe alternative article names like "Israeli art student scandal", "Israeli art student affair", "Israeli art student deportations" or a more explicit "Israeli art student spy ring" should be considered. A comparable article might be 2009 hacking of Google by China a.k.a. Operation Aurora. Since this scam is still running a decade after it first appeared and the same modus operandi is being employed by similar parties in multiple locations around the world, it would seem to debunk the spy ring angle. The time span and number of locations should probably be emphasized sooner in the article proper. Rename to art student scam. Lambanog (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The bulk of the Israeli criticism - which this article is obviously predicated on - is supported by unreliable sources. The biggest source is an article from an alternatively magazine known as "The Weekly Planet." It is known for its edgy stylized reporting and opinionated articles. The claim that Fox and other media outlets trying to report "criticism of Israel" were a victim to "pro-Israeli pressure groups" was cited by Carl Cameron who has been implicated in journalistic fraud. Either way Fox has yet to release an official statement and no documents have been provided proving any conversation occurred between pro-Jewish groups and the mainstream media. This is a major flaw and could be interpreted as libelous if a proper source is not found. As confirmed near the end of the article, most of the allegations regarding a so-called "spy network" were supported by anonymous testimony cited in a "single internal memo." The actual document about the spying only mentions Israel 4 times and does not even remotely describe the kind of conspiracy being promoted in this article. Ultimately, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there is very little evidence supporting an israeli-spy ring that has infiltrated the american government, indirectly conspired with the 9/11 attackers, harvesting organs of palestinian infants, etc...etc. Unless a user can provide some core DOJ documents or explicit testimony from relevant figures virtually half the article is pure conjecture. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten

After initially fixing only the lead, I have rewritten the article and reduced the conspiracy theory stuff to reasonable dimensions. I still can't understand how so many can be voting for deletion based simply on the original bad state of the article as opposed to an actual analysis of the sources. To quote a 2004 article in Forward Magazine:

"The art-selling operation, which first surfaced in the United States in 2000, has been reported on by The Washington Post, Fox News, Salon.com, Ha’aretz and most extensively by the Atlanta-based alternative newspaper Creative Loafing. It has for three years now been a hotly debated topic among amateur spy watchers and on conspiracy theory Web sites." [11]

Here is a permanent link to the clean version of the article, in case the conspiracy cruft gets reverted back in. Please help by watching the article. This AfD page is currently watched by 51 editors; the article itself is watched by less than 30 editors. Conspiracy theorists will not go away just because we delete their favourite articles. We must watch them. Hans Adler 08:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As will be noticed, the article is currently written as if it had the name Art student scam. I believe renaming it in this way is appropriate since the two versions of the spam are so closely related. Obviously, it also makes a lot of sense in terms of controlling the cruft. Hans Adler 08:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I am afraid we can't use it for the article, but here is a nice video about a tourist's experience with the scam, complete with photos of the scammers and the exhibition. [12] The relevant part starts at 4:20. Hans Adler 09:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From original nominator I'm happy with a rename and rework along these lines that generalises things and removes the more fantastical conspiracy elements. I'm not removing the nomination as I think this should have a proper admin close.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename: I endorse Hans Adler's work. It is now, one noteable, well referenced subject in one article without undue weight on any particular nationality or group perpetuating this type of scam. Adler's efforts have wholely turned this thing around. The only thing left to do to improve it is to rename to Art student scam removing the implication that this scam was only performed by one group. WTucker (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Better, but yet I question the encyclopedic nature of an article about a scam like this, there are hundreds of such scams, particularly from China. -RobertMel (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC) + Didn't see the rename, I should have looked closer. I guess I endorse. -RobertMel (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename the current version. Kudos to those have worked on it; it is now much, much better. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, and thanks to Hans Adler and others for good work on this one. cmadler (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've already voted to merge/rename, so no need to repeat it here. This is a good rewrite, but I have two objections: 1) it's still a bit bowdlerized, 2) "urban legend" verdict is unwarranted, looking at the totality of what reliable sources say, and is therefore POV. The article will probably be kept, but I foresee that as soon as someone tries to expand the last paragraph, there will be trouble. GregorB (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what precisely you mean by "bowdlerized" in this case. "Urban myth" was used by a reliable source, but I agree it is not the best term to use here. "Conspiracy theory" might be better, because that includes the role of the media: The dubious French intelligence magazine that described the content of the DEA document in very sensationalist terms, and Die Zeit and others taking them at face value. I agree about someone trying to expand the last paragraph. But there will be trouble whether we keep this article or not. It's trivial to create a new one with a slightly different name. If enough reasonable editors watch the article it shouldn't be a problem. As of this writing the article is watched by precisely 30 editors (and this AfD by 54). Hans Adler 17:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in fact I meant "to bowdlerize" precisely as "to remove material that is considered offensive or objectionable from (a book, for example)".[13] Note: "offensive", "objectionable" - not "unsourced", "POV", etc. The "spying thing" bit is significantly condensed compared to the pre-rewrite version, and as I said, the trouble will start when people look at the sources and say: hey, there's more to it, let's expand this paragraph! Of course that "urban myth" is supported by RS, but it feels like some kind of adjudication as to what is the truth. Since other RS disagree, or at least raise a reasonable doubt, this designation is not neutral. GregorB (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's clearer. It's important to look at the order in which these sources appeared. It's not unusual that there is some short excitement based followed by everybody (sometimes except for a few conspiracy theorists) understanding what really happened. In such cases WP:UNDUE applies: We explain that there was some confusion, but we don't explain every little detail of it, unless it's very significant. The balance between the different aspects of a topic is a key factor for NPOV. Hans Adler 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I agree. The media may be quick on the trigger when they write of "Israeli spy ring", not necessarily because they're biased against Israel, but because they are biased towards "interesting" subjects. "There is no spy ring" is far less interesting, and is perhaps under-reported. Not only that: even when Washington Post actually dismisses the spy theory, it does so in a cursory way, almost out of hand. That's possibly because six-page denial is far less interesting than six-page theory of The Salon. (Regardless of which of the two is closer to the truth.) All this should be taken into account too. GregorB (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2010 (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.
fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_student_scam
Marcações: