Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 October 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. There are numerous policy reasons cited to delete the article, mainly copyright violations and POV/attack. None of these reasons - which are policy-based reasons for deletion - have been addressed either in this discussion or by improvements to the article. The keep !votes rely on the view that the article is "well sourced", but it has been amply demonstrated by the delete !voters that sourcing is not sufficient to save the article in light of the other concerns. There is a consensus to delete the article. Mkativerata (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

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

Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns this article is also just a collection of news to incriminate Royal Dutch Shell. The article also serves as attack page significantly edited by editor who has had a court case with Royal Dutch Shell. Significant parts of it are copy-pasted from different news which raise copyvio concerns. (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Extensive use of non-free text). Codf1977 (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced, and I don't particularly care whether an editor involved with the article has had a court case with Royal Dutch Shell. Does that have any material impact on the sourcing used in the article? It doesn't. Deal with that via standard editing protocols. Don't delete the article because one person editing it has an axe to grind. Copyvio concerns are another matter, surely, but I am equally sure that these concerns can be rectified by editing. Insofar as I have admittedly not taken the time to explore what portions of the article have been copy/pasted, I implore the nominator to remove these portions of the article, given that the nominator is apparently aware of them. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your comments, but would like to add that one editor has made 52% of all edits, he is a SPA with regard to Shell and that the amount of work required to fix what is basicly a attack page is IMO out of all proportion to any net benefit this page has on the project. Happy to see the odd section of notable significance merged into Royal Dutch Shell. Codf1977 (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have recommended Royal Dutch Shell market manipulation and Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues for deletion, and maybe suggested that this article be converted into Royal Dutch Shell enviromental, litigation and controversies, of all these shell articles I would think it would be the best place to begin as a clean up; remove the bloat, duplication and other issues.
However as the article has similar copyright problems as the previous deletion, it still would be deleted due to the numerous copyright vios - if tagged with Template:Copyvio. I understand that wikipedia is a work in progress, but neither is it acceptable to have an article with issues such as this existing interminably on the assumption that somone will fix it one day. My opininon would therfor be delete unless there is a clear statement that someone intends to fix the issues the article has in the very near future.Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article and well written. Good aggragate article. Needs some work for cleanup. If its attracting attacks, then it needs to be added to the page patrol. scope_creep (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Attack page contrary to numerous policies including WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:SOAP, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Colonel Warden. The topic is notable; however, the article is not well-written nor encyclopedic. There has been some progress since last AfD to improve the article but it is too far from acceptable quality standards and above-mentioned problems are not solved. There is also no active process to improve it. All together, it would be easier (and better) to have a fresh start than trying to improve this article. Beagel (talk) 04:02, 2 September 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.