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


 * 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   deleted by . (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:POVFORK of 2010_Haiti_earthquake_conspiracy_theories. 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)
 * Of course the article is about the organ harvesting claims. There are several reasons these claims are notable; one if them is that - uniquely - they stem from a single, loony, YouTube post. The other reasons are that they were reported on uncritically in widely viewed media networks, were endorsed by a fairly powerful politician, and led to the sacking of another. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:57, 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)
 * You're not giving much of a chance to any new phenomenon, which could hardly have had time to justify millions of crimes. The claim was reported on uncritically by Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is considered a mainstream media source and is frequently used as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. This is "a few antisemites jumping on the bandwagon"? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If a reproter on Al Jazeera TV had claimed there was organ harvesting, and cited the YouTube video, I would agree with that statement. However, Al Jazeera merely republished on their website an article that reported the existence of the YouTube video. Should we retain the article to give this "new phenomenon" "a chance" to become as notable as The Protocols? -- Pontificalibus (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just reporting the existence of the video, as in "whoa, look what wacky things people do on YouTube these days!" The article was about the alleged harvesting, it was citing the video as a real source, introducing it by saying "some critics have said...", and with not a word of criticism or questioning of its veracity. We shouldn't retain the article to give this "new phenomenon" "a chance" to become as notable as The Protocols. We should retain the article because, for a new topic, it's pretty darn notable. Measuring its notability by comparing it with a hundred-year-old topic is pointless, since those will always be more notable. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There are not, from anything I can see, notable "Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti."  There seems to have been a relatively isolated incident with Jenny Tonge.  We might wish to cover that incident, but an article on the claims themselves would not be the way to do it.  One can compare 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy, which has received a certain amount of press coverage, but has not resulted in an article, "Claims of Israel harvesting organs of Palestinians."  This isn't an encyclopedic way to cover this material. Mackan79 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion how to cover the material in a way parallel to the way the Aftonbladet-Israel controversy covers its material? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - this article provides coverage of issues raised that need to be aired. Why do we need to 'censure' articles that deal with valid topical issues? Being a semite, I see no antisemitism within it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.53.235 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum to denounce. Its an encyclopedia and should be factual. All this conspiracy articles are making their way into Wikipedia, many of them don't even qualify as conspiracies.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - looking at the key sources referring to the alleged organ theft, they're obviously anti-Israel. I mean, come on - some of them are direct quotes from Iran's leadership! And from David Duke's website?! Come on. These are hardly unbiased reliable sources. This needs to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, however, the question is not whether the allegations might be true (of course they're not) but whether they are notable. Saying that the sources of the allegations are anti-Israel is irrelevant. What you need to establish is whether or not they've received wide enough circulation to be worth covering in a unique article. It seems probably not. Evercat (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the fact that the sources of the rumour are anti-Semitic gives more proof that the rumour is non-notable. This is really just some YouTube prankster making stuff up and the explanation being accepted by people who need another thing to criticise Israel about, and to give it its own article affords the rumour a status it doesn't have. Sceptre (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per several editors, above. The sources simply don't pass muster, tied as they are to one youtube video. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to CNN's Christiane Amanpour, the Haitian Prime Minister said that "There is organ trafficking for children and other persons also, because they need all types of organs,"    [Trusting CNN meets Wiki's pillar request for "verifiable, authoritative sources."]  If there is some indication that Israel is involved, why the adamant insistence that investigating that possibility should be smothered? Wouldn't any group implied WANT an independent inquiry to show their non-invovlement? The very fact that there is heavy political pressure being applied to force silence and smother questioning  looks peculiar and makes it seem obvious that KEEPING this article on Wiki is very relevant to wiki's goals of open information and neutral viewpoints versus succumbing to political pressure smother information. [And regarding neutral viewpoints, why is it that any theory that one disagrees with ends up being described a "conspiracy theory"? Looks like more smothering efforts.]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kufakufa (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Request to speedy close and delete. I wrote this article with the intent that it would be about a WP:FRINGE theory, not about Israeli activities in Haiti. But it seems that, other than me, the only people endorsing keep are doing so because they identify with the fringe theory. This is disturbing, and leads me to believe that the article is badly structured and/or named in a way that makes it appear to advocate the theory rather than merely describe it. Therefore I'm withdrawing my keep endorsement and making this request. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It makes more sense to cover the whole thing under this title than under a title that links it to the unrelated HAARP stuff. Of course, I firmly believe that neither article should exist for reasons that I've detailed here, here and here. I also think it's silly to link the article to the Haiti operation. The root of the accusations can only be understood in the context of previous allegations and controversies. The next IDF operation (wherever it takes place) will generate similar accusations. We don't have separate articles for Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Gaza, Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in the West Bank, Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in the 1990s, Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in the 2000s although you'll find plenty of material to document such accusations. It's interesting to see how the initial mistake of creating and keeping 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories is resulting in such schizoid confusion. Why not create an article about the history and evolution of the IDF organ theft rumours and accusations? There's plenty of material to link the Aftonbladet controversy, the subsequent admission that some harvesting did occur in the 90's, the Haiti allegations, etc. But it's a difficult article to write and maintain because one has to mix documented evidence, documented counter-evidence, documented allegations and documented counter-allegations from sources of various importance and various objectivity. One would also need to find the subtle balance between giving undue credence to baseless accusations and whitewashing some of the unpleasant facts. So the easy way out is to bury the story in a conspiracy theory article about Haiti. Pichpich (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.