Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISN - The Israeli Scientific Network


 * 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 Speedy Delete per A7. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ISN - The Israeli Scientific Network

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable subject; fails WP:GNG. Only six results for 'israeli scientific network' in Google. No third party sources; fails verification (WP:V). Furthermore, the article creator has an apparent conflict of interest (WP:COI). Mephistophelian (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE; THE ISN IS REAL, VERIFIABLE & AIMS AT ANSWERING A REAL PROBLEM THAT AFFECTS MANY POEPLE IN ISRAEL. (1) The ISN is real. Anyone can verify that such an idea for solving the problem of the 'fleeing brains' from Israel is real, when visiting the website presented in the article. In this website, anyone can find an email for a person that can answer any question an individual has on the ISN. (2) Since the ISN is real, and since the article is written in a way of presenting a real solution and a real problem that is debated for 15 years in the media in Israel, there is a place for this article. (3) There are many examples in the history for solutions for problems. Even when a different solution for a problem is used, there is a need for knowing all suggested solutions. For example, it was suggested that the state of Israel will be located in Uganda. Should an article on this appear in an encyclopedia? Of course that it should (British Uganda Programme). (4) The critique of the individual that suggested deletion has several arguments that are NOT related with the real question of whether the ISN is real and solves a real problem. What matters most is whether the information is correct; every fact presented in the article is correct and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flomenbom (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 May 2011 (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.