Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns
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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article deals with a valid topic; however, right now it is just a collection of news to incriminate Royal Dutch Shell. The article serves as attack page and WP:POVFORK created by editor who has/had court case with Royal Dutch Shell. The article does not have any logical structure or references. Significant part of it is copy-pasted from different news which raise copyvio concerns. I thought a quite long time how to improve this article; however, having a painful experience with cleaning-up Sakhalin-II article overloaded similar stuff from the same editor, it seems that clean start would be better solution. It is also not clear if a separate article is needed or the safety issues concerning Royal Dutch Shell could be better addressed in Royal Dutch Shell or Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell articles (the last one is also messy and needs extensive work). Beagel (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the above analysis - the same editor User:Johnadonovan has also created similar articles Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues and Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell, both of which have similar issues. I and others have made an effort to improve "Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell", but "Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues" is a similar mess.
- The article Royal Dutch Shell already has sections covering these subtopics - I would suggest expanding these sections with notable, concise information and deleting these, frankly unfixable articles. In my opinion they should be deleted on copyright violation grounds as well, since ~50% of the content is direct copy-paste. I would strongly recommend a fresh start.
- As an aside I'm annoyed that User:Johnadonovan has consistently ignored WP:COI and created poorly formed attack pages riddle with copyright violations (see User_talk:Johnadonovan#Shell_articles_cleanup). It would also be helpful if someone could examine whether a topic or even total ban/block for User:Johnadonovan is suitable - given the numerous problems with every contribution they have made.Sf5xeplus (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree he has continually ignored his COI, I do think a topic ban is in order. Codf1977 (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have currently have one Royal Dutch Shell article and 3 "shell's problems" pages - if someone can recommend a good structure for covering this info (preferably 1 or 2 subpages max?) I would volunteer to rewrite any useful info currently in the problem pages.Sf5xeplus (talk)
- As an aside I'm annoyed that User:Johnadonovan has consistently ignored WP:COI and created poorly formed attack pages riddle with copyright violations (see User_talk:Johnadonovan#Shell_articles_cleanup). It would also be helpful if someone could examine whether a topic or even total ban/block for User:Johnadonovan is suitable - given the numerous problems with every contribution they have made.Sf5xeplus (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom, possibly notable topic, I might mark it for rescue if it was smaller but his is a hachet job and almost an attack page. COI concerns are a major issue here Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agree with the others, it is a biased attack page. At the end of the AfD, if the consensus is to delete, I intend to nominate the other "Shell problem" pages.Codf1977 (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep - after reading the page, the main reason to delete seems to stem simply from WP:IDL. It attacks Shell but those attacks uses actual news reports. Obviously without Shell's response, the article is currently one sided, but the point is...the page uses verifiable references that are from respectable news sources. The only thing this page is guilty of is a lack of balance. A simple tag can solve that not deletion. If pages, based on legitimate sources are going to be removed because they make unpalatable commentary. What does that say about Wikipedia? For example the Catholic sex abuse cases article is based entirely on negative news reports concerning events. It is not listed for deletion as an attack page on the world's largest Christian religion. If Wikipedia is to going have policies then they should be applied fairly and consistently. It would also seem to me that the need to delete is based more on who the article's author is and not what they are saying. As a neutral, I just read the page and made my own judgement. It needs work but it doesn't need to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.4.232 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the copyright issues then ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- odd the IP is citing policy and using wikilinks... with no other edits.... odd dont you think? Smells like a dirty sock. Hope fully some one will stop by and admit they forgot to sign in...Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me but I take those remarks very, very personally. I have been on this site since about 2004. And I have never had an account because I don't buy into the BS that has grown up with being an editor, and all the accoutrements that go with it. The idea of an open source encyclopedia relies on good faith. But I can see what the remark I am "a dirty sock" truly demonstrates, something I have known for along time (LOL: nowadays "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has a real hollow sound). I use an IP because what I say, I say on merit and the quality of what I say is based on facts that I know. However there are too many editors here who get a little bit of power - a barnstar, a title and they become the all-knowing keepers of the sacred seal of truth, knowledge and everything ("All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"). I believe if my work is good, then it will stay. My work is based on being nothing more than an IP, it therefore has nothing to do with any self-styled "status" of a user account. In this case, and let's not forget about Shell, all I was trying to state was the article is in a pretty poor state, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and this is an article on a notable topic (the oil industry safety record in general is already pretty questionable BBC: New checks on safety for ageing North Sea platforms 28/07/2010 / Scotsman: North Sea industry told 'raise game on safety' after jump in gas releases 24/08/2010). It shouldn't just be deleted because of the author. But it seems that this agenda has also been applied to me (an anon IP = questionable ethics i.e. not to be trusted) because I had the temerity to make a point in support of this article. Wikipedia is now a shadow of what is was, there was a time when the call would be to be bold and make changes. Things now have just degenerated into personal attacks and arbitrary decisions based on who is saying this, or saying that. By staying independent, all I have is the contributions I make with an IP address. In the case of this article, it's just been tagged. There has been no attempt to improve it or change it, only delete it. What happened about being bold? BTW if someone has been too lazy to write their own copy, then rewrite it. In my experience, nearly every "good article" has copyright issues because they are just reiterating conclusions of previously published sources. A direct result of Wikipedia policy of not allowing Original Research. Are you going to start removing all those previously published statements from all the main page articles? Of course not. Copyright should not be confused with plagiarism; but that doesn't mean deletion just judicious editing. So to people like Weaponbb7, why don't you spend less time worrying about power politics and conspiracy theories and actually get on with making contributions, huh? I do and for being bold, I get pilloried for it. I am no sock puppet except for my previous post. In fact, the reason I hadn't made any edits (and why I got on to this page) is because I often have a sad need to read AfDs and the user pages of dispute causing social-dysfunctional misfits. Ironically I now spent half my evening formulating a response to justify myself or my actions after a personal attack. Is this really what Wikipedia was set up to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.20.99 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that sock calling is uneccesary, let me apologise to you for that since you took it personally, it's not clear that anyone here has a history of such a thing. Please note that in addition to the poor quality of the article as it is; as I noted above 50% of the text is copy-pasted from other places. This would be a clear case for using Template:Copyvio which eventually leads to a deletion if the problem is not resolved. (To see what the copyright notice that results looks like see Template:Copyviocore). Basically as you note - it's a mess that needs cleaning up. Copyright violations are really not acceptable on this scale, the only reason I haven't 'tagged' it so far is that I hoped my message on the article's primary editor's page would have some effect on the problem.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me but I take those remarks very, very personally. I have been on this site since about 2004. And I have never had an account because I don't buy into the BS that has grown up with being an editor, and all the accoutrements that go with it. The idea of an open source encyclopedia relies on good faith. But I can see what the remark I am "a dirty sock" truly demonstrates, something I have known for along time (LOL: nowadays "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has a real hollow sound). I use an IP because what I say, I say on merit and the quality of what I say is based on facts that I know. However there are too many editors here who get a little bit of power - a barnstar, a title and they become the all-knowing keepers of the sacred seal of truth, knowledge and everything ("All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"). I believe if my work is good, then it will stay. My work is based on being nothing more than an IP, it therefore has nothing to do with any self-styled "status" of a user account. In this case, and let's not forget about Shell, all I was trying to state was the article is in a pretty poor state, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and this is an article on a notable topic (the oil industry safety record in general is already pretty questionable BBC: New checks on safety for ageing North Sea platforms 28/07/2010 / Scotsman: North Sea industry told 'raise game on safety' after jump in gas releases 24/08/2010). It shouldn't just be deleted because of the author. But it seems that this agenda has also been applied to me (an anon IP = questionable ethics i.e. not to be trusted) because I had the temerity to make a point in support of this article. Wikipedia is now a shadow of what is was, there was a time when the call would be to be bold and make changes. Things now have just degenerated into personal attacks and arbitrary decisions based on who is saying this, or saying that. By staying independent, all I have is the contributions I make with an IP address. In the case of this article, it's just been tagged. There has been no attempt to improve it or change it, only delete it. What happened about being bold? BTW if someone has been too lazy to write their own copy, then rewrite it. In my experience, nearly every "good article" has copyright issues because they are just reiterating conclusions of previously published sources. A direct result of Wikipedia policy of not allowing Original Research. Are you going to start removing all those previously published statements from all the main page articles? Of course not. Copyright should not be confused with plagiarism; but that doesn't mean deletion just judicious editing. So to people like Weaponbb7, why don't you spend less time worrying about power politics and conspiracy theories and actually get on with making contributions, huh? I do and for being bold, I get pilloried for it. I am no sock puppet except for my previous post. In fact, the reason I hadn't made any edits (and why I got on to this page) is because I often have a sad need to read AfDs and the user pages of dispute causing social-dysfunctional misfits. Ironically I now spent half my evening formulating a response to justify myself or my actions after a personal attack. Is this really what Wikipedia was set up to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.20.99 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- odd the IP is citing policy and using wikilinks... with no other edits.... odd dont you think? Smells like a dirty sock. Hope fully some one will stop by and admit they forgot to sign in...Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 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.