Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out Of Kilter Scandal

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Out Of Kilter Scandal

Out Of Kilter Scandal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

An article with a one-sided point of view that falls just short of attack, containing a number of unsourced statements which violate WP:BLP, and which covers a three-day old news story which hasn't spread beyond New Zealand. Neither the phrase "out of Kilter scandal" nor "Macleangate" appear anywhere searchable other than this article. (I expect they may occur in the members-only web forum in question). Google news has a total of seven hits, being one or two stories in three of NZ's metropolitan daily newspapers, one radio story and one television news story (of three significant news channels which might have covered it). Two of the four references are from the forum itself and are currently returning 404 errors, and the external link requires forum membership. Let's face it, this is a storm in a teacup, and I have a strong suspicion that one or both of the main contributors has a Conflict of Interest. If there is significant/ongoing coverage in six months time, then it might be worth an article, but not now. dramatic (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -dramatic (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable news story, with the only reliable source quoted being an article in The Press, and the other sources being valueless.-gadfium 09:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, serious WP:BLP problems. Huon (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

From a historical perspective yes, this story is little more than a storm in a teacup but with regard to the censoring actions of Maclean, and censorship in the New Zealand media in general, this is a highly important cybertext. I have a suspicion that this is only the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.232.78 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then once a couple of reliable sources (say The Listener and North and South have done in-depth articles analysing that, we can report on it. Until then, any discussion of censorship is Original research rather than verifiable fact and it ain't allowed in this encyclopedia. dramatic (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is understood & in appreciation of your seeming role here as content moderator but are you not merely being overzealous ? The content in this document is factual and confirmed as so. These matters have to be covered in YOUR choice of media too? In what sense are you qualified to make these calls please ? Maybe the music industry and those who are involved should be those best qualified to understand and report upon this matter; surely.

We are definitely open though to discussion and debate / hearing further guidelines for information improvement nonetheless.

My role here is as an ordinary editor complying with Wikipedia's published policies. Wikipedia has no value if the information on it is not trustworthy, and the only way that can happen is by rigid application of the core policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. In addition, Wikipedia needs to protect itself from litigation by not allowing material which may be defamatory to be published. Which sources are acceptable is not a personal decision - the requirements are that 1) The source is not publically editable, so someone cannot go and publish or alter information then cite it on wikipedia, 2) Not the opionion of a single person or interest group (e.g. blogs) 3) subject to typical standards of journalistic/editorial integrity or peer review (See WP:RS for more).

The fact that you use the term "we" suggests that the various editors of this article are a group of members of the forum in question, therefore you have a Conflict of Interest and should refrain from editing the article. If the story is notable enough, disinterested people will document it from the appropriate secondary sources. dramatic (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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.