Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haiti organ harvesting

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 delete. JForget 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti organ harvesting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article (view history) is rife with questionable sources and is unsupported even by the facts from reliable sources. Even at that, the singular legitimate source (the claim of the Haitian PM on CNN) should be incorporated into 2010 Haitian earthquake and does not merit its own article. Mobius1ski (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though we might merge the content with some conspiracy theory article that discusses organ trafficking - and only because the article quotes the prime minister. Rklawton (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable for an article; this article was only created as another launch-pad for anti-israel attacks on wikipedia... now that the offending and undsourced material has been removed, it is very clear that the remaining 2 sentences are not worthy of their own article. As a matter of fact, why isn't this being speedily deleted? Breein1007 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 21:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Arguably speedy, but I'm not that familiar with applications of A10. Ray^Talk 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a bunch of garbage, with clearly bad intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yydl (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The allegation doesn't merit more than a brief mention in the source; it certainly isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - horrible propaganda, conspiracy theory, not notable, one man's claim, and that man a man who allows his people to eat dirt cookies. [1]. Per Breein, another attempt to smear Israel, which was saving lives in Haiti [2][3][4][5][6] Perhaps we could have an article about that? How sad that we even need to consider this for 2 minutes. Stellarkid (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Unomi (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. notable topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes with no explanation are meaningless. Oh well. Breein1007 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable how? Doesn't seem like you really have much to say. Breein1007 (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - Accusations received international news coverage and had an impact on British politics, so possible notability. EuroPride (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Delete - Relevant information is included in the Antisemitic canard article and on the article of Tonge. No need to have a seperate article. EuroPride (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The impact on British politics (one person getting fired from her post) is covered in the article about Jenny Tonge. This topic is not notable enough to have an article just because of Tonge. Breein1007 (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Regarding this edit - Please could you show the discussion that established that The Guardian is an unreliable source? Thanks. EuroPride (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the proper place to discuss edits, but I will answer you in case other people are now curious about your question. It is Press TV that poses a problem, not The Guardian. The Guardian reference did not have anything to do with the Haiti allegations. Breein1007 (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is news and not wiki-news worthy at that. I recall that this issue has already been kicking around in various wiki articles since the earthquake. There used to be a 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories article for instance which had interesting things like the earthquake was caused by a magnetometer in Alaska, someone dropped a large book/left the microwave on too long or whatever. In the end I think the organ stuff went into Antisemitic canard. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-there is already too much anti semitic propaganda and no need for more under the unpersuasive argument of encyclopedic importance. Lets fly away this crap-WP is not a news site and more than that, it's not hospice for fringe theories. Who went to sleep with dogs wakes up with fleas.--Gilisa (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete what a garbage. Broccoli (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perfect for the National Enquirer.--Hmbr (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for early closure: Please close this AfD already, the unequivocal quality of this article truely justify early closure.--Gilisa (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amen Stellarkid (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete politically motivated soapbox wikicrapBigglove^talk 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge the needed material into 2010 Haitian earthquake and/or Urban legend and salt this. We don't need to perpetuate non-notable fairy tales. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable conspiracy theory. May merit a mention on Tonge's page, but not an encyclopedic article. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the record I am for deletion first or less preferably as a mention in the article on modern anti-Semitism or wherever such an article exists nowadays. The entire notion was based on biased conspiracy theorist sites with utterly no relevance to the truth. Keeping this as an article or portraying this idea as worthy of legitimate discussion would be a great disservice to Wikipedia's goals. 149.169.221.148 (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not news, and it is not a repository of random conspiracy theories. It is also not a place for "supposed or rumored practices". —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malik Shabazz. I would leave this sort of stuff to snopes.com.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 13 April 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.