Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1998 Manila blackmail incident


 * 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 keep.  — fetch ·  comms   02:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1998 Manila blackmail incident
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * A previous discussion was going on at Talk:Manila hostage crisis.

Discuss
This is about alleged abductions and murders that supposedly occurred in 1998 that seems to have been revived because of the recent Manila hostage crisis. Due to the severity of the alleged crimes I at first thought it was a legitimate subject for an article but so far all I've found are allegations and the number of sources I am finding seem smaller than I would expect for an alleged incident deserving of an article. The creator claimed it is getting play in Hong Kong but when a third party asked for further evidence beyond the two refs he started with (one in Chinese) he didn't provide any more. I also don't know at what point the line for notability is drawn for crimes before articles on them become crime logs and WP:ROUTINE comes into play. The name of the article doesn't help to distinguish it either and going by its contents is an inaccurate description. If it's kept it should be moved to a more appropriately named page. I am also concerned it is being used as a form of muckraking in the Manila hostage crisis article. Lambanog (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lambanog, I understand your concerns but I do not like all the additions of "it is said" that you have added to the article. If you are going to edit the article in such a manner, please add who actually said those things. Location (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I added those conditional phrases because the article is based mainly on allegations. To not preface the statements with "it is said" or similar is to make a statement of fact not accusation.  A close reading of the single English language source provided by the article creator as a reference will show that careful language is also used that avoids statements of fact.  Does the Chinese language article referenced not make such a differentiation?  People here can judge.
 * If I did not attribute the statements to someone, I may have missed doing so but it is also likely that the sourced reference did not either. In any event my edits are meant to clarify something that should have been made clear from the outset by the article creator; if there are problems with the attribution I believe the onus should primarily be on him to make things clear.  The nebulous attribution of the accusations even if going by the references provided is part of the reason I have nominated this article for deletion.  Lambanog (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to nominate an article for deletion and state that you think the article is based on unsubstantiated assertions made in one or two newspaper reports, but it's an entirely different matter when you insert weasel words into the article that make things even less clear for those attempting to make an Afd recommendation. The insertion of "it is said" is a type of weasel word (see #2 at Weasel word) that presumes a somebody who said it. I think if you look closely at the first reference, the assertions are alleged in "documents in the Inquirer’s possession since 2008". The assertions need to point back to the Inquirer or the documents in their possession. I imagine that it's relatively easy to find an "according to" for the other assertions, too. Location (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Undo the edits I made and read that version of the article (addendum: here it is) and then judge whether it hews more closely to what is said in the references. The sourced reference uses the weasel words. That adding phrases generally considered by Wikipedia to be weasel words results in an article that more closely matches the given reference it is based on is in itself a good indicator of the subject's deficiency.  Lambanog (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The 1998 blackmail incident does a little summary at the end to highlight the state of political relationship between Philippine and HK after the 1997 transfer. When I edited it, I wanted to make clear this was NOT another routine kidnap case. I have urged Lambanog to contribute and insert a more Philippine perspective into the article, but he has no interest. If the incident needs to be downplayed, giving it a lower importance rating should be more than enough. These controversial subjects have very few editors that want to get involved. The censoring and blocking only hurts the community even more.  Benjwong (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Honestly, I'm guessing that this AfD is a knee-jerk reaction by the nominator after I've inserted it back to the "See also" section of Manila hostage crisis for policy rationale I have cited and explained here, per WP:ALSO. Also, backing it up with the two different (unrelated to each other since one is from Hong Kong and the other from Philippines) newspaper sources. Furthermore, he has insinuated that I am writing from HK perspective when I am in fact from Singapore. The fact that I'm not writing from HK or PH perspective is thus bringing into the article a neutral third party's opinion, and my opinion right now is that this article "1998 Manila blackmail incident" is relevant and has been backed by two different verified reliable sources whereas the nominator has went on a spree of adding weasel word. This, my friend, is no different from behaving like a fanatic. That is all. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On the Manila hostage crisis article you reverted a perfectly sound edit claiming WP:SYN but when asked to explain, you are not to be heard from until it was resolved with my edits being implemented.  Later you remove a self-explanatory See also link to the widely known Japanese embassy hostage crisis and replace it instead with a link to this questionable article.  Curious you even took the time to give a long policy rationale before inserting the link when your contributions to the article before then were negligible.  Your actions speak for themselves.  Please do not pretend to be a disinterested third party in all of this.  Lambanog (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just a content dispute but you behave as if you own the article. Your response to me? Becoming a nominator for this AfD and you didn't even have the professional courtesy of informing every involved party on Talk:Manila hostage crisis, where are your manners? Another thing, you have not respond to Benjwong's query to date, so its either you're purposefully avoiding him or the topic. Also, it is woefully clear to everyone here that you're being a real jerk when I've already explained my absence here. To which now, I shall disengage and bid you adieu (per WP:Deny recognition). On WP, there's 3 million other articles to edit, why should I be bogged down by your personal remark about myself or the others? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So you accuse me of behaving as if I own the article, not having manners, behaving like a fanatic, and being a real jerk. Whatever.  Now tell everyone how you could countenance linking to this start class article when at the time you did so it presented allegations as fact. Did you look at the sources given?  Also explain why at about the same time you removed a link to the Japanese embassy hostage crisis, a B class article of a well covered incident from the Manila hostage crisis article?  How do you reconcile such actions to the building of a quality encyclopedia?  I cannot fathom any good reasons for it.  It is incumbent upon you to address the central issue head on and not dance all around it. Lambanog (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

With no additional voters, I think this delete is plain stalling the discussion. How long can this drag on for? Benjwong (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stalling what discussion? The one Dave1185 participated in?  I invite anyone concerned by the accusations to see how that was dealt with when a third opinion was called in.  But that is largely beside the point, this article being nominated on its own has serious weaknesses.  Contrary to what you said above, you did not ask me to contribute to it and yet I did.  It is in the course of doing so that I saw all the inherent flaws and decided to nominate it for AfD.  As for when this process ends it should in 7 days, so very soon.  It is unfortunate uninvolved people have avoided giving their opinion on it. Lambanog (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "How long can this drag on for?" Benjwong, if you are not familiar with how the Afd process works, please check out Deletion process. WP:NOTEARLY addresses your specific question. Location (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2010 (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.