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. May well be an article to be written here, but this isn't it, as explained well by the comments. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sayanim[edit]

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

nominating for deletion, this is a clear antisemitic conspiracy, the sources provided are non-peer reviewed, a quick google search leads to neo-nazi and conspiracy sites...wikipedia having this article just feeds hate

Viewfromthebridge (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a quick Google search turns up the books cited in the article, and several more besides. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article and Gbooks have multiple reliable sources which are neither neo-Nazi nor conspiracy. Edward321 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The article is a conspiracy-theory with anti-Semitic overtones. The main source cited is Gordon Thomas, a notable anti-Israel conspriacy theorist. For example, For example, Gordon Thomas in his book "Gideon's Spies" alleges that Yitzhak Rabin was not assassinated: "The surgeons insisted there was no possible gunshot wound that would have allowed Rabin to leave the attack site showing no evidence of a wound and arrive at the hospital with multiple damage ... subsequently the doctors have refused to discuss the matter." This way lies madness.AMuseo (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is The Jerusalem Post in the habit of publishing anti-semitic conspiracy theories?[1] Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You puzzle me, the article you link to is about Palestinians who have given information to Israel, in exchange for which they are allowed to resettle in Israel.AMuseo (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a good-faith search on google scholar. There articles about Palestinian sayanim. Google scholar leads with one from the Journal of Palestine Studies about Palestinian Arabs who work with the Mossad. There is a scholarly article "The Mossad Imagined: The Israeli Secret Service in Film and Fiction" describing these Jewish sayanim as stock characters in fiction about the Mossad. The third citation is from an apparently a self-published paper called Judonia Rising a typical screed by web-based lunatic anti-Semite Joachim Martillo. the next is from a book by one Matt Webster, about whom I know nothing except that he does not google well. the next citation seems to be a 9/11 conspiracy theory [2] These are the only citations in the first 10 pages of google scholar search term "sayanim." The term does seem to be applied to some Palestinian Arabs and non-Israeli Jews. but it is apparently primarily used by conspiracy theorists and fiction writers.AMuseo (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what this needs is a rewrite getting rid of the unfounded statement that all sayanim are Jews, and ensuring that conspiracy theories are presented as such. This could include an outline of the views of Thomas and Ostrovsky, but should be based on reliable sources discussing those views rather than on those writers' own works. The Jerusalem Post article that I linked above shows that "sayanim" (helpers) is the Israeli security services' own preferred name for these people (supplanting the previously used name "mashtapim" (collaborators)), so the title itself can't be claimed to originate from the conspiracy theorists. I'm not volunteering to do such a rewrite myself, so will not put the word "keep" in bold letters, but I think that this has the potential to be made into a neutral encyclopedic article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate. The article in its current form is of very questionable accuracy (for example, the unsourced claim that Sayanim must be "100% Jewish"; is anyone alive today really 100% anything?) Over half the article is unsourced, and the two sources currently used appear to fail WP: RS. Normally, that would be grounds for improvement, not deletion. In this case, however, the article is in such bad shape as to actually be harmful to the image of Wikipedia; as such, it doesn't belong in the article namespace. It should at the very least be moved to the WP: Article Incubator, and at most deleted outright. Which of the two paths is taken depends on whether this topic is actually notable or not; I don't know for sure (since I'm not an expert in this area). Stonemason89 (talk)
Delete. Clearly nonsense as noted above. No problem, however, in starting over about Arab "sayanim". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:03, 20 July 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.