Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Internet Defense Force (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Com'on, the last AfD was only last week. If you disagree with the outcome, take it to Deletion Review. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 

The Jewish Internet Defense Force

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As far as I can tell, all of the provided third-party references that can be considered reliable don't actually talk about this group. The CBS news one is about the Canadian military telling it's soldiers to not post their photos on Facebook. The Computerworld article is about the Simon Weisenthal Center. Perhaps I've missed something but all of the refs that actually cover the group are publications OF the group. It would seem to fail WP:N as a result. A Facebook vandalism group doesn't seem particularly notable, and WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here as well, as the overall breadth of coverage is pretty scant. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some of the references are not directly on-topic. However, the July 31 Telegraph article and the July 30 Jerusalem Post article are about this group's activities (taking over an anti-Israel Facebook group in order to delete it). No opinion yet as to the group's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) That's where I got the one event thing from. It doesn't seem like they've done much (or received much coverage) outside of that. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't understand why the jews care so much about the internet anyway. There is so much garbage on all sides.  Article is confusing, one-sided, and fails WP:NOT Testmasterflex (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually do understand why the Jews care about this kind of thing, but that's another topic. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Two newspaper articles doesn't make a website notable — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I think I knew more about it before I read it.  Burner 0718  Jibba Jabba! 04:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the JIDF is the primary topic of articles in three different newspapers which are referenced on the page. Nobody of Consequence, the background section includes references on the background (not related to the group -- so you are right there) but that is not unusual in a background section. Oboler (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also... why have the editors of the article not been notified on their talk pages that the article is nominated for delete? I thought that was common practice? Oboler (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph article and one of the Jerusalem Post articles give essentially the same information, telling about how some people hijacked a Facebook group. The other Post  article, which is actually an opinion piece, seems to have been written by you? Possible conflict of interest? Regardless, a couple of articles that say the same thing don't really help establish notability beyond a one event kind of thing. Every day, people form pretend "groups" and claim they're notable for hijacking sites. Many of them have tried to create articles here and they're pretty much all been deleted. I just can't see how this group is worthy of a Wikipedia article. If they get more coverage in future publications, maybe so. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you're thinking of image deletions for dropping notices on people's talk page. The AFD notice on the top of the article page is a notification for everyone. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Snow keep First AfD ended a week ago as "keep" and there has been edit warring to some degree since then. Sorry, but I feel this is simply an extension of those disagreements which were being reasonably handled until this process was revved up. Banj e  b oi   07:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Keep" What is a "snow keep?" -Again, I am fairly new here to editing WP, but when I've visited I rarely see this AfD on any articles, so I'm not sure how common it is. I have contributed to the article, and yes, I have been part of some of the aforementioned "warring."  I do not wish to continue that here, but do feel in general that the article is well sourced and it is about a notable organization and this latest AfD does seem a bit odd considering the "warring" was just starting to die down and we were actually getting somewhere with the article--Einsteindonut (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Snow is essentially don't waste time with a process if the outcome is unlikely to change. I cite that only because the last AfD just closed a week ago as a "keep". If nothing else we would revert to the last good version if we needed to. I do sense, as you suggest, that the warring was dying down so hope we can get back to a constructive state. Banj e  b oi   08:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Week Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and wikipedia is not there to create or advertise a phenomenon but to report its relevency. The "website" and/or "unformal" organisation is completely new and it nearly unknown from the media. What are the WP:RS secondary source that talk and refer to this ? Given it is new, we don't expect scholar but at least several newspaper articles reporting its action. The fact it is an unformal anonymous organisation and that it targets "living people" is also another concerns per the "philosophy" of WP:BLP. ; Comment The procedure follows to closely the former one. We should wait. Ceedjee (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are saying its a real group. BTW in the USA speech calling for violence against a person or group is not protected by the First Amendment, just thought I'd mention that. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep That's a lot of references for something to be nominated for deletion. Bstone (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural speedy keep Don't renom articles a week after the last AFD. If you disagree with how it went, take it to DRV. Jtrainor (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable, given that the organization has made the news several times. Articles exist for less notable and less sourced topics. The only argument in favor of deletion is the present quality of the article, and the article should be improved to meet the proper quality standards -- not deleted. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2008 (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.