Talk:LuxLeaks: Difference between revisions
AfD closed as Snow keep |
No edit summary |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Could a sceptic, looking for RS and asking such questions as: ''Is ICIJ an activist group pushing POV in the name of objective reporting? Or a sockpuppet group paid for by lobbyists? Or a front for owners of media interests practising tax avoidance directly or indirectly?'' be sufficiently answered by reference to [[Center for Public Integrity]] and [[Offshore leaks]] ? --[[User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] ([[User talk:Qexigator|talk]]) 08:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
Could a sceptic, looking for RS and asking such questions as: ''Is ICIJ an activist group pushing POV in the name of objective reporting? Or a sockpuppet group paid for by lobbyists? Or a front for owners of media interests practising tax avoidance directly or indirectly?'' be sufficiently answered by reference to [[Center for Public Integrity]] and [[Offshore leaks]] ? --[[User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] ([[User talk:Qexigator|talk]]) 08:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:--> [[Conspiracy theory]]? -- [[User:Neudabei|Neudabei]] ([[User talk:Neudabei|talk]]) 09:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:11, 14 November 2014
Luxembourg Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Taxation (inactive) | ||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 November 2014. The result of the discussion was Snow keep. |
POV & AfD
This page seems to be designed to promote a single website based on shaming businesses for normal business practices where no civil or criminal conduct is indictaed. Defamatory implications were made by providing a list of companies and the name of a non-notable private individual against whom no charges have been leveled. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I have removed a long list, mostly with red links of companies implied to have commited criminal acts with no individual documentation given. I have removed the name of a private, non-notable person. The remainder seems to consist of synthesis meant to shame the former prime minister of Luxembourg for having been in office during a certain time period. I have nominated the article for deletion on these bases. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- The public notability is concerned with government and political responsibility for tax law and administration. Given that there is no report of criminal or other unlawful tax evasion on the part of the listed companies, as distinct from lawful tax avoidance, listing them is undue and POV-ish and should be removed. Qexigator (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
ANI
See the ANI regarding defamation and copyright violation by adding a cut-and-paste list implying "shady" business dealings by the source. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Name and attribution
The information is one thing, but I see no source for the article's opener Luxembourg Leaks (sometimes shortened to Lux Leaks or LuxLeaks) is the name of a collaborative journalistic investigation...: is the name of the article to be attributed to International Consortium of Investigative Journalists? Is it a proprietary name? There are and have been other sources: who or which is entitled to claim (principal) authorship or control and responsibility, and is there any precedent for naming an article in this way? Qexigator (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Could a sceptic, looking for RS and asking such questions as: Is ICIJ an activist group pushing POV in the name of objective reporting? Or a sockpuppet group paid for by lobbyists? Or a front for owners of media interests practising tax avoidance directly or indirectly? be sufficiently answered by reference to Center for Public Integrity and Offshore leaks ? --Qexigator (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)