Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A land without a people for a people without a land

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). nneonneo talk 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A land without a people for a people without a land[edit]

A land without a people for a people without a land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It Was created by a notorious sockpuppet and it may have been part of a concerted POV campaign. Plus It relies primarily on two biased sources, only one of which can be linked to. Plus it appears to have been heavily plagarised from the main source Annoynmous (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are thirty-nine sources. Which two concern you? Powers T 02:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as no valid deletion rationale is presented. As Powers said, this seems to be heavily sourced. (And over a year old, so the provenance of the original creator isn't terribly relevant). AfD isn't for cleanup, or fixing potential POV issues. Bfigura (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment"...may have been a part of concerted POV campaign" is not a reason to delete the article. The article in its present form provides references for things it says and there are a bunch of editors who have worked on toning down POV. Could you clarify why you considered deletion rather than working on the article itself? Prashanthns (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all my lengthy discussions with the nominator and my reading and minor clean-up experience at the article. No rationale for deletion as per policy has been presented. Prashanthns (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and dig further before nominating for AfD again. The article appears to be well-sourced. Most sources listed are not web souces, but that alone does not make them illegitimate. A cursory GoogleBooks search shows that the subject itself appears notable and that at least its basic definition is correct: 188 hits[1] including some that explicitly refer to the phrase as a Zionist slogan, e.g. here[2]. Yes, the article was created by a user who is now banned as a sock, but that alone is not a good enough reason to delete a article like that without a much more detailed and well argued case. If there is incorrect info here, misquoted sources, etc, they need to be pointed out. I suggest that the nominator withdraws this nomination now and then brings it up again if warranted when such preparatory work is done. Nsk92 (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, now that I think about it, since the subject does appear notable, it is hard to imagine under which circumstances deletion would be appropriate unless it somehow turns out that the current text is completely inaccurate and unsalvageable. If there are POV issues, they need to be cleaned up, but an article on a notable subject deserves to be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Regardless of whether it was created as part of a POV campaign, at the moment it has multiple (not two) sources being used to write about the issue from multiple sides, without relying on a small subset. It almost looks like the nominator AfDed a different article than intended, because the description does not match this article at all. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAlmost none of the sources in the article can be linked to. All the sources are essentially copied from Diana Muirs article. In fact now that I think about it I probably should have added plagarism to the list of reasons for deletion. The whole article is basically an advertisement for her article. If you guys want to move whatever you think is relevant material to another article like the Israel zangwill article fine, but a phrase like this doesn't need an entire article devoted to it.
You seem to be ignoring my main criticism. Evidence based, American Clio and Yankee scribe are all the same person. He created the article and he was primarily the person who edited it. The article really hasn't been edited by anyone else except him. The only other edits have been to edit minor spelling errors and things like that. This editor was also banned around the same as Zeq, which says to me he may have been part of CAMERA propoganda campaign that was recently unearthed. That taints everything in the article as far as I'm concerned. This isn't an article, it's a piece of propoganda intended to smear people like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said. As I said if you want to include relevant material in other articles go ahead, but the article itself is cancer.Annoynmous 03:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHmm-m, a lot of strong emotions here but I still don't see a good reason to actually delete the article. I don't care if it was created as a part of the grand CAMERA conspiracy or by the Devil himself. The subject looks notable to me, there are multiple sources available and an article is warranted. Nobody is stopping you from editing it yourself. I don't know about the others, but I personally would not object to having the article reduced to a stub for the time being: the main definition and a few references. Nsk92 (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really wish you hadn't nominated this which such a silly rationale, Annoynmous. This is reasonably well-crafted propaganda, an arguably notable topic, and you need to explain in detail what is wrong with it rather than (correctly) impugn the motives of its creator. You cannot expect people to do the research on their own and figure out what is wrong with this article. Since, thus far, only you have asked for deletion, I would ask that you please withdraw your nomination. That way we can close the AfD and start again with a proper one. <eleland/talkedits> 03:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given a reason. I would think that an article that was created with the intention of slanting wikipedia itself would be a candidate for speedy deletion.Also what sources are there. There are only 3 links below. All sources are pretty much copied verbatim from Diana Muir's article.By the way this article is only a 6 months old, not a year. The entire slant of the article is towards muirs point of view.
Plus, maybe it's just me, but the main argument itself seems very convulted to me. Taking the "A" out of the " A Land without a People" is supposed to be some sorta maliciousness distortion by people like Said? What an amazingly stupid argument. It's basically replicating muir's entire argument with nothing to counterbalance it.I say again, why does a Phrase need it's own page. Isn't it more appropriate to articles about people who used the phrase. Who is muir anyway. Before she wrote this article it seems to me she was a nonentity. The fact that her article was published in the heavily baised Middle east Forum doesn't raise any red flags for anyone. The main point is that the article was created by a an editor with an agenda therefore it must be removed. If someone want's to start it over from scratch fine, but as it stands it has to go. The editor was the only person who edited this article in any significant way. He added the content and sources. He was banned for sockpuppetery. He was banned the same time as Zeq. The articles he edited were primarily middle east based ones. Shouldn't this article be cut off as the fruit of a poisonous tree. Eleland, you can't tell me that this article doesn't seem woefully distorted and slanted to you..Annoynmous 03:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you tried to paste in here a large portion of a talk page discussion for this article, showing that there were many sockpuppets present there. You were reverted, in my view correctly. This is an AfD, not a talk page. If you feel that people should see it, I suggest probviding a link or maybe pasting that entire content in question to the talk page of this AfD itself. This way people will be able to look at it and yet it will not clogg the main AfD space. Nsk92 (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible bias, slant, lack of clickable sources, lack of source diversity, poor argumentation, and copying content from other articles are all good reasons that an article should be improved, not necessarily deleted. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Article needs work, but is sourced and appears to discuss notable topic. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there are problems with bias, then edit the article to eliminate the bias. If you think Diana Muir is wrong about the origin and use of this slogan, then look for other sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands is completely unacceptable. If you want to delete everting except the name fine. However, everything after the first sentence is biased and POV. The entire article is basically an advertisement for Muir's article. I realize now I should have added plagarism to my reasons for deletion, but I figured the fact that the edtor was a sockpuppet with an agenda would be reason enough. Can't we leave it up for a little bit longer and see if there's anyone who supports my position. 12 hours is all I'm asking for. annoynmous 04:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with leaving this AfD open for the full five days. I just don't think that deleting the article altogether is an appropriate way to deal with its alleged problems. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (Also, the article seems to have been created before Muir's article was published, so its existence is not dependent on the Muir article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per metropolitan90. Kukini háblame aquí 04:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the article isn't sourced. There are three links below. Two of which are too Muir's article. All the others sources come from Muir's article. I doubt the editor actually checked the sources to see if Muir quoted them right. If you want I'll add plagarism to the reason for deletion.annoynmous 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever do you mean, the article isn't sourced? It lists 38 references. Granted almost all of them are non web-accessible, but that alone does not make them invalid. There is no requirement in WP:V or WP:RS for the sources cited to be electronically accessible. Most books are not anyway, lots of newspaper and journal articles aren't either. If there are references listed in the article to books/journal articles that do not actually exist but are made-up, it would be a different matter. Nsk92 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are reasons to improve an article, not delete it. Kukini háblame aquí 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think most people would agree that the editor who created this article was a vandal who was trying to slant various articles at wikipedia. Well, everything in this article was created by the vandal. The article itself is a de-facto vandal. If something is entirely based on an unreliable source doesn't that make you think the entire enterprise is a sham.annoynmous 04:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm trying to make that this article would not exist without the vandal editor. It's entire existence is a work of sabotage. Why can't this subject be addressed in another article that deals with people who coined the phrase. Why does the phrase itself need an article.annoynmous 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again there are really aren't any sources in this article. Yes there are a lot of books referenced, but that assumes the editor actually looked at those sources to confirm what they said.It seems to me that the editor basically copied Muir's argument and then listed all the same sources as in her article. Basically there really is only one source for this article.If plagarism counts as legimate sourcing well then that's very unfortunate.annoynmous 05:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, I'm not seeing a real reason to delete. AfD is not for cleanup. Maxamegalon2000 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is great, an article is created by a POV pushing sock-vandal with intent of biasing wikipedia. He has know been banned and was probably part of the CAMERA propoganda campaign that was recently exposed. Didn't any of you guys hear about that. I can't even ask other people for help, so I'm forced to be the lone wolf defending my cause. If an article was created on Global Warming and the entire article was revealed to have been written by a PR man for Exxonmobil, your telling me you wouldn't want that article deleted right away? annoynmous 05:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make some heavy charges. Provide evidence, or it didn't happen. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and develop. It has multiple sources, it provides perspective, it has value. If it has flaws, work to fix them. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nothing wrong here, are you kidding me. An article entirely plagarized from an article that says it was critics of zionism who popularized the phrase "A Land Without a people, For a People Without a Land" instead of the zionists themselves and you say nothing wrong here.
An article that also makes the argument indirectly that there was know such thing as a palestinian identity before the zionists started coming. That has to be insulting to some people on wikipedia. Please, is there anyone out there sympathetic to the palestinian cause who finds this entire article vulgar and obscene.annoynmous 05:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is quite a tirade. Has it occurred to you that you have some pretty serious POV pushing problem yourself? You might want to look up WP:BATTLE. Nsk92 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some insight (humour!) see WP:KETTLEPrashanthns (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make such statements. An AfD discussion is not really a place for varied political affiliations to push POV. Also, article may be insulting to some people is not really a good arguement. I really wish you had listened to all those suggestions on your talk page that many editors and I gave you. Pleae read Deletion policy again, if necessary. Per User:Eleland's suggestion, I recommend you withdraw the AfD. Firstly, you have come here with a poor understanding of what constitutes a deletable article. Secondly, responding to each and every editor's opinion on the page with no substantial or new reasoning is hardly going to 'convert' people towards deletion. And thirdly, like so many other users above, What prevents you from truning the article around? Work out the whole article on your user page if necessary and re-post 'your version' of the article on the talk page. Build consensus, argue and justify your opinions based on wikipedia policy and improve it. Else, face it! This article cannot be deleted just because you don't like it. You are only incurring bad faith by insisting on its deletion. Prashanthns (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. annoynmous, let me remind you of the Wiki policies regarding civility and assuming good faith. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! First I can't ask for help now I'm being told what type of statments I can or can't make. Who are you to say that I haven't made my case for deletion. The article basically only has 3 sources that can be linked to. Two of which are Muir's article. All the other sources and most of the content of the article is basically plagarized from her article. You know it's not like I just picked this article because I hated it. I looked at and something seemed very odd, seeing is how it was entirely biased towards one point of view. Then I looked at the history page nd saw that the primary editor of the page was a sock who had recently been banned from wikipedia. The entire article was obviously created with malicious intent. It would seem to me that an article like that would be a prime candidate for deletion. Why should someone be allowed to create an artilce with a POV agenda an then when they get banned have the article stick around because no one wants to delete it. I haven't just repeated the same argument. I've added the fact that the article appears to be heavily plagarized from Muir's article. I've laso said about a billion times, but apparently no one's listening, If you want to redue the article from scratch than fine. However, to say that the article is fine as it is is a lie. It is a biased travesty. I must say I resent being told that if I continue to stick up for my point of view I'll be punished. Let other editors decide that please, don't presume to speak for all of wikipedia.annoynmous 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I can see I'm getting nowhere with this. A gentlemen above made the suggestion that the entire article should be reduced to a stub until someone comes along to add the pertent information. How about something like "The Phrase is supposed to mean this, but there are contorversies as too it's origins" or something like that. That's the most I'm willing to accept sense just about everything else in the article comes from a biased perspective. I would like the tag to stay for another 24 hours and if by then no else comes along to support my view then I'll take it down and it can be reduced to a stub. I would also like to say I didn't mean to insult anyone, I just felt the decks were being artificially stacked against me. I also am frustrated as to why people aren't more angry about the fact that a sock created an article purely for propoganda purposes. Very well 24 Hours that's 07:03 on May 15.annoynmous 07:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit properly for a NPOV. An extremely famous slogan. The editing of course is untrustworthy, but that can be fixed--more easily now that everyone is fully aware of the sockpuppetry and POV editing involved here. DGG (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that many of the names used to support the authors thesis were also created after this article by the same vandal editor. That includes Adam Garfinkel, Alexander Keith, Jacob Lessner, Diana Muir and S.llan Troen. All there pages were created by the same sock editor, obviously to make there views on this article seem legitimate. The articles on Israel Zangwill, Anthony Cooper and Edward Said were also substantially altered to fit this articles thesis. It just seems to me that people should be angrier about the damage this editor has done to wikipedia. annoynmous 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that I need to change my approach and that anger may gotten the better of me. I would like to say that I am sorry if anybody felt insulted by my tone, but I felt like I was being ganged up on. Okay, let's address the issue of sources. A lot has been made about "How can you want to delete this article, it has 38 sources" and I think that's fair. However, If you look at the article closely I think you'll find that article doesn't have as many sources as you think. First off several of the sources are listed more than once. The links are spread throughout the article to make it appear more sourced than it actually it is. If you look at the names of the sources the same book appears 3 sometimes 5 times. It actuality there are only about 20 sources.

Most of the sources in support of the sock editors agenda are concentrated in 4 places. Diana Muir's article. Jacob Lessner and :S.llan troen's book, Adam Garfinkel's book and Alan dowty. Aside from the fact that none of these people had wikipedia pages before the mysterious editor created them, they come from very biased backgrounds and couldn't really be considered notable or reliable. Adam garfinkle use to edit the conservative American interest. S.llan Troen is head hair of Israel studies at brandei university. Diana Muir, she is an historian of New England so I don't why she is qualified to speak on Israel. Plus as Eleland pointed out on the talk page, she advocates that the black checked keffiyeh is symbol of palstinian determination to destroy the jewish state. These aren't neutral sources people. I wish I could tell you more about them, but there isn't much on there pages. An indication to me that the editor new they weren't highly regarded commentators. So add that to the sock editors crimes, artificially inflating the number of sources and reling on biased and obscure academics.annoynmous 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also erased two sources from the article. One was from an extreme right wing site called the American Thinker, the other was a rabidly pro-Israel website called Middle East Peace, neither of which had any references or scholarly basis to back up there claims. These are the sources the sock editor relied on people. Doesn't that tell you something about the content of the article in general.annoynmous 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I tried to hold myself before responding. But, I fail to see where you are going with this? I have the following issues, which I will put as succinctly as possible.
  • Your tone - You should assume good faith of others' actions, as we do to yours! REmember you have twice now edited the page with an ip. When you brought the article to an AfD, it is but rational to expect comments. People will say what they feel and they did. I found your response this response incivil. Persistantly questioning people's judgements is not something I would do. I am not advising you but merely sharing a point. Most people who participate in AfDs do some thorough reading before voting. If you go on and on about it, it borders on trolling.
  • You continue to remove portions from the article without any discussion on the talk page!! You were reverted once and you have done it again! I shall not re-revert, because, I am not aware of the subject itself and have only stuck to the process. In this matter, I have no POV either way.
  • Sources in the articleYou keep questioning Diana Muir article creation. EVEN IF it was created by that sock, she is definitely notable. There are several reliable sources and secondary sources for her. There are many who are right and many who are left wing. That in itself does not mean her works are disqualified from the article. If in fact she is saying something that is wrong, find a source which says that. Wikipedia is not for original research and we cant say, this is wrong and biased, so let me remove it.
  • Please do not indent every point you are making here. It is unnecessarily prolonging the page! Just indent your response and that is enough. No need to add the : to every line.

Prashanthns (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Formatting done to improve readability. No content removed. —Prashanthns (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I stated why I removed to articles in the edit summary and above. There's no law says I can't still edit is there. As I said above both the sites are very unscholarly and very biased.
As for my tone, I beleive I apologized above for that and said I'm sorry If I offended anyone. I don't understand your hostile response. Prashanthns, you said before you have no particular bias regarding this subject. I'm sure you don't and I apperciate that, but the point I was trying to make was that no one has really actually looked at the article. I just sometimes get the feeling that people are against me out of a gut instinct without really looking at my argument. I felt that I was probably to blame for that because in my haste I hadn't artuculated my argument well.
The argument I was trying to make was that everybody was saying how can I want to delete this article when there's so many sources and the argument I was trying to make was that actually there isn't. Also what little citations they do have come from obscure academics who I'm sorry aren't that notable.
I'll tell you what, I'll try to watch my tone if will watch yours in regard to how I edit my entrees. I will also try to make my arguments more precise and not let my emotions get the better of me. annoynmous 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to reiterate an argument I made above. Let's say an article was written on an aspect of Global Warming and the main thrust of it was that most scientists agree Global warming is hoax. Let's say it had over 50 sources. Then the editor was exposed as a sock who worked for Exxonmobil. Also most of the sources were found to be from scientists paid by oil companies. Your telling me that article wouldn't be immediately deleted and started over form scratch.annoynmous 14:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am telling you. If the article already quotes some scientists, as long as they are not directly discredited by the scientific community, it is not for me or you to decide to delete and start from scratch! Instead, I would balance the article by providing sources of the other views. Do not be judgemental of sources.
And No. People are not opposing you without reading. I reiterate most people read thoroughly before voting! Do you really think Diana Muir is non-notable?? Can you show this? Would you also nominate that article for deletion then as an article about a non-notable person?? Prashanthns (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Not indirectly discredited by the scientific community, may be it's just me, but if your taking money from the oil companies you pretty much discredited. If not discredited than least not reliable when it comes to commenting on global warming.
Also, yes I would delete the Diana Muir article because her page was only created in the first place to make her sound like a legitimate voice. Why do you say she's notable. There aren't many links on her site and it isn't very long or deatiled. Unless you know something about her I don't I'd say her prestige is very limited.annoynmous 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is where we completely differ. Diana Muir based on my research (done right now) is definitely notable and I dont think her AfD will go through. Yes, I completely agree that the present status of her article is bad. It is written like a commentary, but that does not make it an AfD candidate. An unsolicited suggestion to you would be to not waste your time on her AfD. In any case, I am done with this exchange of ours. I dont think we are heading anywhere with this and as I said earlier, and another editor commented, you seem to be engaging in the same manner of POV that you accuse this article of!Cheers and no more responses from me on this thread! Prashanthns (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


All I did was remove two links that I felt came from bias sources. There's nothing that says I can't edit the article while the tags up. In fact the tag itself says so.
It's interesting you admit that her article as constructed is bad. Your admitting that the article as is doesn't really show her to be that notable and that is has a very biased outlook.
Even if she was notable I don't understand why a New England Historian is suddenly an expert on Israel/Palestine.
I'll say again I never meant to insult anyone, but I resent this constant belligerent tone I get every time I try to argue my point. Am I just supposed to just lay down and say "Okay you guys are right".
I'll just say, If this article isn't a standard candidate for deletion than I'd hate see a one that is because it must be truly awful.annoynmous 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about one over a non-notable topic? That's the standard candidate for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems hopelessly POV, and created by a banned user to push a certain point of view, based on sources of questionable reliability. Do we really need an article on every phrase used in political debate? Edison (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD is not the right place for resolving content disputes. The subject is notable, of apparent historical and event contemporary political signicance. There are lots of reliable sources that cover it (just do a GoogleBooks search) and it deserves an article. It is not the fault of the subject of the article that it the article was created by some relentless POV pusher. Nsk92 (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A phrase 150 years old, that several editors and historians have thought notable? Yes, we do need an article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; if you want to create an article without taint of sources and sock-puppetry, go ahead and do so in userspace, and maybe it can be moved over this article if other editors agree. Otherwise, it's a passable article over a notable subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This isn't an article with just a taint of sockpuppetery. The whole article was created from the ground up by a sock. All the sources and relevant content were added by the sock. Not to mention that it is essentially an advertisement for Diana Muir's article which the editor shamlessly plagarized.
Alson, I think your placing to much importance on the phrase Prosifilaes. Yes it's an old phrase, but it's more famous for the people who have used than the phrase itself. It seems to me that relevant place is in articles of people who used the phrase. It also seems lke an incredibly long phrase to have it's own article.
Thank you edison by the way for a voice of support.annoynmous 16:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple people have used a slogan, especially over 150 years, then it's notable. If you feel the article is horribly tainted by the sockpuppet, go ahead and write a better one. Sock-puppets at this stage are not a reason to delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why not, If an article is created from the beginning with malicious intent then why shouldn't it be erased and started from scratch. I wouldn't know were to start in improving the page as it is. I'd have to erase damn near everything except the title. That's how slanted it is. This isn't a case of a little bias over here and over there, No from top to bottom, A to Z the article is rotten to the core.
I'll ask again, If an article dealing primarily with an aspect of Global Warming was found to have been primarily edited by a sock who turned out to be an Exxonmobil PR man wouldn't that article be deleted?.annoynmous 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the guiding principles on Wiki, according to my understanding of them, are verifiability and reliable sourcing. It doesn't matter who the editor is. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You are missing the point. The subject of the article is notable, irrespective of who created it. If your hypothetical scenario were true, and if the subject itself was notable, it will not be deleted. It will have to be re-written. Similarly, here too, the subject of the article is notable, but perhaps (as you say) the content may not be. That does not mean that it has to be deleted. Re-write it if you can. If not, tag it as {{POV}} and somebody else will get down to doing it. Prashanthns (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well Hello Prashanthns, nice to see you back. So basically anyone can create any biased piece of garbage they want on wikipedia and not have it removed. Even if the whole reason for the articles existence is because the sock created it. It seems to me that should matter somewhat.
Also, as I've said before the article isn't properly sourced. If you guys would look a little closer at the article there really are only two sources. One is Diane Muir. Just about all the other links are plagarized from her article right down to the page numbers. The other source is the Jacob Lessner and S.llan troen book.
I would also like to say that I know of an article on two former CIA agents turned political commentators who had there page deleted because they believed in 9-11 conspiracies. If an article can get deleted for that than why can't one that was started by a sock.annoynmous 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Global warming and change it to say "Global warming is a lie." (Warning: don't really do this.) Watch it get changed to a better version of the article. That's how we deal with biased pieces of garbage, not deleting Global warming.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The difference is that the Global Warming article wasn't created in the first place specifically to serve a socks POV agenda.annoynmous 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, please dont use it to prove a point. I have started some minor tone-changing of the article to remove POV. I will stick to tone and people feel free to correct me if I make any factual error, as I don't know the subject and will only deal with style. Prashanthns (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another difference is that the Global Warming article doesn't have a "t" in the title. That's about as relevant. If your difference is even a difference; have you really checked who created the Global warming article and what their motives were?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


That's why they call it a hypothetical. I said if it had been created from the beginning by a Sock than it would have been deleted.
I'll tell you what I'm gonna make a deal with you guys. I made a proposal above that know one listened too for a 24 hour timeline if no one agrees with me that it should be deleted. The good Mister Edison broke that timeline, but now I'm gonna set another one.
If 24 hours from now no one else comes along and agrees with my position that the article should be deleted than I'll agree to have the tag removed. That's 17:40 May 15. I'm gonna go away for a while because this is starting to tire me out.
Also, please don't anyone do anything foolish like try erase someone's delete vote from the history log becasue I will check them thoroughly.annoynmous 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh...so much for assuming good faith, no? Kukini háblame aquí 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed!Hmpf...Annoynmous, you speak like we are all enjoying this! I am tired of responding, but anyways, note that this is NOT A VOTE!! We are trying to generate consensus. I really wish you read that deletion policy that I referred you to SO MANY TIMES! Prashanthns (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a talk page which would serve as a better forum for these long threads. Also, I remind everyone to keep a cool head. nneonneo talk 17:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Already cooling down!Should this be moved then, or suggestions for (hopefully not!) future long talks? Prashanthns (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's mainly a suggestion for future threads and future AfDs, since moving the threads in this debate would probably disrupt continuity. Comments here should be kept short, while more detailed and in-depth discussion can be taken to the talk page. Thanks for your input! nneonneo talk 19:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe the article presents the major points of view fairly, and any NPOV issue on that page is probably minor. This wasn't worth dragging to AfD, in my opinion. nneonneo talk 17:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As it is clearly a notable subject, POV issues require cleanup not deletion. ~ mazca talk 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You know there's know way for me to win is there. My god some of you guys are incredibly thin skinned. I made a suggestion for a timeline so we could end this and like usual I get accused of rudeness. I was talking about some random person who might fool with the history page, not any particular person. Why does every sarcastic comment I make get interpreted as a major insult.
NNeoneos comment shows me that it isn't that I haven't read the deletion policy, It's that you guys continue to ignore my argument. To say that this article is fairly NPOV is outrageous and only someone who either has an agenda or hasn't really looked at the article would say something like that. Would you guys' please just look at the article instead of bashing me for not reading the deletion policy or sounding insulting. Look at the history page and see how the sock editor was the primary editor. Look at the sources and see how many times they there cited. Read Muir's article and see how many of the sources were plagarized from her article. Do some actual research instead of just harping on me for not giving up and going away.
It seems like many of you guys came into this with your minds all ready made up and never bothered to listen to my argument. Instead of looking to see If I was right or wrong you just decided to overrule me. If that sounds insulting than so be it, but I personally feel insulted by the bullying tone I've some time been subject to. All I've ever done is argue my point and I get excused of being uncivil. Well if my tone is uncivil it's because I get angry at comments like nneonneos above. Any person who actually looked at this article objectively or who knew something about the subject matter would never say this article is fair and accurate.
I don't understand why keeping this article is so important to some of you. Some of you have admitted that you don't know much about the subject so why the instant reflex to keep it.
As I said before I'll keep to the timeline I set above and by the looks of things the tag is coming down in a few hours so don't worry your suffering is coming to an end soon.annoynmous 09:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Annoynmous, please use the talk page. Writing such long responses here clutters the page and makes it difficult to see the responses of individual editors. This suggestion extends to other talk pages: discussing and elaborating on perceived issues at the article's talk page often leads to a more balanced and fair article. nneonneo talk 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It doesn't matter, I just wanted to keep it for the record. I'm about to remove the tag in an hour anyway. I would just like to say nneoneo I wasn't suggesting that above that you were biased above, I just felt you hadn't looked at the article closely. I didn't mean to insult you and I apologize if it read that way.annoynmous 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Left a message on the talk page for you nneonneo. Thank you for your contributions and again I'm sorry if my tone sounded insulting toward you above.annoynmous 16:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, I'm gonna remove the tag now..annoynmous 17:00, 15 May 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_land_without_a_people_for_a_people_without_a_land&oldid=1194950757"