Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. This was a hard discussion to close, as there were relatively few comments that were based on Wikipedia's deletion policy. In particular, participants are reminded that AfD is not for cleanup. When discounting rationales not based on the deletion policy, I could see no clear consensus to delete. The existence of blogs and fringe websites about the subject was generally agreed to not prove notability, which should be no surprise given Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources. However, there was no consensus as to whether the mentions in the international sources were enough to show the subject was notable. Future discussions should revolve around whether the mentions in these sources consist of "significant coverage" per the general notability guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 18:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcha Faal

edit
Sorcha Faal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many issues with this article, it would require extensive work to bring it up to MoS and policy standards. I'm also wondering how much of the article is truthful and how much is notable. I didn't want to CSD it, and want to see what the community think Osarius - Want a chat? 14:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean to delete Its strange that this article is still tagged as a stub when its barely 1 day old and already full of conspiracy laden paragraphs. Either this article on this anonymous blogger is really trimmed down to size or it should be deleted in my view. Sentences such as 'Sorcha Faal Belongs To A Zionist Jewish Criminal Syndicate' in the 'Controversy' paragraph indicate to me that this article may have to be deleted if it doesn't stick to a more neutral point of view instead of allegations against one ethnic group. --Artene50 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since I’m the one who created this listing I’d like to say in its defence that I’ve done my best to stay as neutral as possible giving as many sides to this anonymous blogger as possible. This isn’t easy to do with such a controversial “person/entity” whose writings stir such controversy, and since this is my first time doing this I think refining it is the better option then deleting it. As to if Sorcha Faal is a notable subject I believe it is for three reasons: 1. The head of the US Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was asked to resign in a letter sent to her by Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson because numerous Sorcha Faal “reports” were used by the American government in creating a report on right wing extremism. 2. A 14 January 2010 “report” by Sorcha Faal named US Quake Test Goes “Horribly Wrong”, Leaves 500,000 Dead In Haiti was used by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez who accused the United States of using a earthquake “weapon” against Haiti. 3. A Google Advanced Search of the name “Sorcha Faal” shows this person/entities reports being reprinted in nearly every other language on earth. The sentence I wrote that 'Sorcha Faal Belongs To A Zionist Jewish Criminal Syndicate' in the 'Controversy' paragraph was not an accusation against any ethnic group but was an accusation made against this Sorcha Faal by a known anti-Semite who has since been arrested and is important, I believe, in the eventual (hopefully) uncovering of who/what this Sorcha Faal is and how/why her/its reports have reached such a worldwide audience and was/is used by the US government. I have used the most reliable published sources available and have done my best to present all sides to this person/entity with the hope that others here will assist in making it better. arzk02587k —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look over Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (conspiracy websites, forums and blogs can rarely be classed as reliable sources) and Wikipedia:Notability (it's important that the subject has recieved significant coverage, so no original research is necessary). DoctorKubla (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
I've done the firstWP:Clean up of this entry as best I can and would appreaciate any help/advice to make it better as I'm still new at this. Thank you.Arzk02587k(talk) 06:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm still working on theWP:Clean up of this entry and am still getting used to references, etc. Please excuse my clusminess and I'll pay better attention to what others of you have done to improve it too. Thanks againArzk02587k(talk) 09:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

‎‎::I would like to lobby Artene50, DoctorKubla and Osarius to change their vote to Keep because this entry does meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard. You can view for yourself this fact under the Reference Section, and the only reason I haven't put in any more (from all around the world) is because I don't know how many is too much. As to all of the other concerns (and since this is my first entry posting) I'm honestly doing the best I can to make it what it is supposed to be. Thank you Arzk02587k(talk) 10:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you have inserted into the article was badly sourced grandiose claims. I've removed them as a result. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adolfo Gillydiscloses Sorcha Faal is actually an esoteric order of Irish originArzk02587k(talk) 10:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Please see Jim1138talk as to why he deleted the following from Sorcha Faal entries because I don't understand why. The References, in particular, that were deleted show Sorcha Faal's reach extends throughout the world. The External Links I believe are important (especially Naomi Wolf's article on the rise of "conspiracy theory")to give everyone a greater understanding of writers like Sorcha Faal. Thank you.:


Sorcha Faal Report Used By Venezuela President Hugo Chávez A 14 January 2010 report by Sorcha Faal named US Quake Test Goes “Horribly Wrong”, Leaves 500,000 Dead In Haiti [1] was used[2] by Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez) who accused the United States of using a earthquake “weapon” against Haiti.

References

  • Précisions et aléas autour du “complot Jeb Bush”- dedefensa.org dedefensa.org is one of the most popular social/political commentary websites in France and in this article claims that Sorcha Faal is either a double agent for the Russian GRU, or is working for/with the CIA.
  • 媒体盘点2010年十大科学谣言 千年极寒欲翻案- people.com.cnpeople.com.cn is Peoples Daily Online, the official website of Chinese Communist Party, and in this article a Sorcha Faal report on a 'Star Gate' in the Gulf of Aden was named by them as one of the Top Ten conspiracy stories in 2010. This article also says that Sorcha Faal is a computer programmer named David Booth. (But they give no evidence to support it.)
  • Global warming hysteria misplaced- News.com.auNews.com.au is one of the leading "mainstream" online news websites in Australia and in this article says that Sorcha Faal is responsible for a "report" that Australia would have to be evacuated because of global warming.


External links

Look up conspiracy theory in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation Archived 2009-10-25 at the Wayback Machine, America.gov
  • "The 31 Wildest Conspiracy Theories". LIFE magazine – slideshow. Archived from the original on 2010-08-18. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
  • Naomi Wolf. "Analysis of the appeal of conspiracy theories with suggestions for more accurate ad hoc internet reporting of them".
  • Stuart J. Murray (2009). "Editorial Introduction: 'Media Tropes'". MediaTropes eJournal. 2 (1): i–x.
  • Top 10 Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories: by Alexander Zaitchik—Southern Poverty Leadership Conference—Alternet August 15, 2010

Arzk02587k(talk) 12:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple more edits showing that Sorcha Faal has Significant Coverage that is verified by Reliable sources. Thanks againArzk02587k(talk) 08:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article had a plethora of unacceptable sources before IRWolfie- pruned it. I don't see how it holds up to Wikipedia's standards with regards to notability. __meco (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Sources currently in the article. This person appears to pass both WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:
Articles with mentions:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 02:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the logic behind IRWolfie's purning as it makes this entry nearly useless in meaning to an ordinary reader. The sections I've restored, at the minimum, give the reader a more fully understandable context. ThanksArzk02587k(talk) 10:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following the guidelines of Reliable Sources that says The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. in my opinion means that a certain latitude must be given to entries like this one because on the one hand Sorcha Faal certainly meets every Notability guideline and is widely known throughout the world. On the other hand, the space Sorcha Faal operates in is a netherland of sorts outside normal sources, but which are still vital.

This article by Naomi Wolf is a must read for this discussion, and as she so well says:

The mainstream media's tendency to avoid checking out or reporting what is actually newsworthy in Internet conspiracy theories partly reflects class bias. Conspiracy theories are seen as vulgar and lowbrow. So even good, critical questions or well-sourced data unearthed by citizen investigators tend to be regarded as radioactive to highly educated formal journalists.

Simply put, if the sources relating to Sorcha Faal are contextual to the subject they must be included.

Granted, this would be wholly unacceptable for any type of normal entry, but for this one is not normal and stands alone. Arzk02587k(talk) 11:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Initially I was not going to vote etc, but there is no real signs of notability, and attempts to stubify or improve the article have failed because the article creator is re-inserting unsourced and badly sourced material into the article: [7]. The article is formed purely through unreliable sources such as blogs and forums etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I respectfully disagree with IRWolfie’s logic for deletion of this entry because Sorcha Faal does meet the Notability guidelines; specifically Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media-and in any language-and-The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. IRWolfie’s accusation of my re-inserting unsourced and badly sourced material into the article runs counter to Reliable Sources guidelines that says The appropriateness of any source depends on the context, which the sources I’ve noted indeed do.

I also believe that this entry follows the most basic premise of What Wikipedia is not that says There is no practical limit to the amount of information on Wikipedia. And I don’t believe this premise should be compromised by putting the sources relating to it in a Catch-22 and/or no-win situation.

If followed to its most extreme point, IRWolfie’s logic for deletion of this entry would have excluded the non-violent, intellectual resistance group in Nazi Germany called the White Rose who were known for their anonymous leaflet and graffiti campaign, lasting from June 1942 until February 1943, that called for active opposition to dictator Adolf Hitler's regime.

Likewise, this logic would call for the deletion of Thomas Paine'sCommon Sensepro-independence monograph pamphlet he anonymously published on 10 January 1776 that ignited the American Revolution.

After all, both the sources for White Rose and Common Sense would fail any current source test.

This is most certainly not saying that this is what IRWolfie would do, quite the contrary, rather I’m attempting to note that when certain logic trees are followed, no matter how good the reason(s), sometimes valuable, if not crucial, information can be lost.

What I believe is most notable about Sorcha Faal is this person/entities unexplained and inexplicable global reach that is verified by doing a Google Advanced Search on every language, from Afrikaans to Vietnamese, showing this to be true. I can't find anything comparable to this Sorcha Faal thus making this entry unique, and more than noteworthy.

The Wikimedia Foundation Mission Statement says it is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public ___domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. And if Sorcha Faal doesn't meet this goal who does? Arzk02587k(talk) 04:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Sorcha Faal situation to the White Rose situation with respect to the Nazi's is a false equivalence, and also fails Godwin's law. If you think a Google search is what makes someone notable see WP:GOOGLEHITS. I also note that the conspiracy theorist isn't the only usage of this name IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless a balanced, notable & encyclopedic article can be established. There is no sign of this happening. As-is, this is disproportionately the work of one editor who has repeatedly reverted to or reinserted content with questionable statements & sources, poor writing & formatting, and non-neutral language. ωεαşεζǫįδ 02:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change my vote from lean to delete to Delete, This article should be deleted and either restarted from scratch with more balance--and less conspiracy theories--or not recreated at all. --Artene50 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2012 (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.
  1. ^ http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1322.htm
  2. ^ http://boardreader.com/thread/Hugo_Chavez_A_U_S_Weapons_Test_Caused_Th_6o4qX7kjr.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sorcha_Faal&oldid=1221049920"