Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royaldutchshellplc.com (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Valid arguments were made which favor keeping, merging, and deleting. If this were a vote deletion has the most supporters, however the argument that we should in any way consider who created the article or coi editing as reasons to delete is an invalid argument and therefore weakened the case to delete. That is a problem, but not one that requires that we delete the article as a solution. If needed a discussion of an appropriate merge target can take place on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Royaldutchshellplc.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I've looked at but rejected other possibilities for this page including merge into Gripe site as a good example, or merge into Royal Dutch Shell; the problem is that I think the site is actually not sufficiently notable. An effort has been made to establish notability, including references to the site from a reliable news source. There were previous WP:COI issues from contributor User:Johnadonovan which should be mentioned for context. I believe that the subject is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article, lack of (global) impact of the referenced leaks published on the site being my primary reason. Heroic attempt to establish notability with little real meat on the importance of the leaks mentioned suggests overblown page. Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The site has been the subject of an article in The Wall Street Journal, has given rise to a hearing by the WIPO Panel, has been described in the Santa Barbara News-Press as "the world's most effective adversarial Web site", is linked by CNN.com as a source of information on Royal Dutch Shell, and is credited by The Financial Times as the source of information for an article about Shell's pension fund and by the WSJ for information in an article on Shell's reserves. That's a lot more (and more diverse) reliable sources than many articles can muster to support notability. The impact of the leaks is not, I suggest, of primary concern; of greater significance in establishing notability is that these respected newspapers are prepared to base serious business articles on information deriving from the site, and that Shell takes the site sufficiently seriously to think it worthwhile confirming the information and responding. Unless there is some dispute about the facts stated in the article or the reliability of the sources cited, the COI issue is something of a red herring and is not a reason to delete an article: that's a content issue, that can be addressed via editing; it doesn't affect the notability, or otherwise, of the site. Jimmy Pitt   talk  21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that johnadonovan's COI problems are a reason to delete, I mentioned them because I thought they are relevant to an understanding of how this article came to be as it is. Note that the references are via shellnews a related site - that still smells a bit. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does it "smell"? It looks to me as though Shellnews is merely being used as a repository for scans of press cuttings, which might not otherwise be available. Unless you're suggesting that the articles have been fabricated, or are somehow "tainted", I can't see that it matters a jot whether they're sourced via Shellnews, archive.org, or the newspapers themselves. Jimmy Pitt   talk  18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Royal Dutch Shell. The article has issues, and I don't feel it can stay as it is, not convinced that it is the website or the owner that that is the notable one with regard to newspapers quoting them. I think it should be Merged to a section in Royal Dutch Shell. Codf1977 (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC) See comments below Codf1977 (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the sources, you'll see that the newspapers don't quote the owner; they specifically mention that the leaked documents come from this web site. And what issues? Are they fixable by editing? Jimmy Pitt   talk  12:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They are fixable by editing, by reducing it to a stub, which might as well then be merged into the main Royal Dutch Shell. Codf1977 (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What are the issues? And why can they only be fixed by reducing the article to a stub? If you think the article has issues, you're free to edit it. And other editors can then decide whether your edits are reasonable. But so far you haven't come up with a reason for not keeping the article, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid argument at AfD.  Jimmy Pitt   talk  15:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look on the talk page that was my intention prior to the nom, I think that there is two much non-notable history about the Donovan's, I feel it is written in a promotional tone. Codf1977 (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's promotional in tone, but I do agree that we could make do with less on the Donovans: a brief summary to explain the origin of the site is needed, but the history of their disputes with the company is excessive and could indeed be pruned. But that's just an editing issue. Jimmy Pitt   talk  18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that i am making a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position - I did not make the nom, the position that I am taking is as a single issue website, run by two people who have an axe to grind, one of which has been a major editor of the page it should be edited down to little more than a stub and then merged with Royal Dutch Shell (with the std. redirect) then if anyone feels it is proper to expand on it in the future that is fine.Codf1977 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't the exclusive preserve of the nom, but now that you've explained your concerns I withdraw that suggestion. Where I still disagree is over the need to reduce the page to a stub. Are the facts stated correct? On the basis of the refs, they appear to be. Who inserted those facts is then irrelevant. And really, what difference does it make if the article is subsequently expanded by another editor, one with no axe to grind? That editor would still have access to the same sources, and would be quite entitled to build the article around them. I'm not saying that the article doesn't need attention: on that we agree. I'm just saying that I don't think it needs to be root-pruned to improve it. Jimmy Pitt   talk  18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me present a little more detail of the problem - the primary example of its notability presented is this article in the financial times - the question is: is the news notable? is the site notable? It's simple to say "mentioned in FT and Wall Street Journal - must be notable" - but is this necessarily true?
 * I think the page needs looking at more closely than simply examining whether or not references to the site exist in reliable sources. Question - the site can be used as a news source, does that mean an article is needed? I apologise for ignoring obvious arguments for 'keep', but given the history I'd like to see this page given more than a cursory look at in terms of it's validity as an article, Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk)
 * Nowhere did I say that the site is just "mentioned", therefore "must be notable". What I said, and I repeat, as it would seem you have not read the sources, is that they attribute it as the source of their information: that goes well beyond a mere "mention". And I didn't just look at whether the sources exist -- I read them, every last word (even the turgid WIPO report), so your suggestion that my examination was "cursory" is not just wrong, it's insulting. I disagree about the primary source for notability: the Santa Barbara article is at least as important, for its description of the site as "the world's most effective adversarial Web site": that's a pretty solid claim to notability from a RS. Jimmy Pitt   talk  18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ok keep your hat on - I wasn't responding to you so I wasn't suggesting anything about your analysis. I've read the sources - they clearly state (or link to) "royaldutchshellplc.com" as the source for 3 news story. What I'm saying is "so what". That's the lot isn't it? did the stories have any impact. It's clear that the site became interesting to be mentioned as an example of a gripe site (as per Santa Barbara News) but the reliable sources presented seems like an exercise in 'technical proof of notability' rather than something that is 'naturally notable' (ie proof of notability easy to find ). I'm not sure either way. But I don't buy the argument that: because reliable references exist mentioning the site, thus it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. It's a more subtle problem than that.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ok I've worked out a simple way to put my issues with the page - if I could see the articles or article sections covering the news resulting from the leaks from this web site then I wouldn't have so much of an issue with it - maybe that is an additional topic for Royal Dutch Shell - if that info were in "Royal Dutch Shell" then the site would probably be used as a reference. If that were done would there still be any need for this page?

flash of inspiration It suddenly occurred to me that perhaps we should have an article on the two Donovans, with their sites as subsections. Quite a bit of the coverage seems to find their story interesting. I'm not suggesting a bio, but a page covering their relationship with shell, the impact of their site etc. Does that make sense?Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Actually I was going to suggest the same thing. It seems that this story by Reuters, this one by The Times, and this one by Guardian establish the notability of Donovans and Shell relations. So my suggestion is to rename and refine this article. Also other similar websites run by Donovan should be mentioned. At the same time, references to the Donovan's sites should be replaced by original news/sites. Beagel (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't actually add a second support, but I think this is the best route, the issue remains of a suitable name for the page - which I'm stumped with. Royal Dutch Shell and the Donovan family is not suitable. Can I assume that we are going forward with this (can't imagine any objections).. naming suggestions are needed though.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep and refine I feel that the website is notable, despite its owner's malintent here on Wikipedia. However, fallout from the User:Johnadonovan-COI exposé is still evident in the article (e.g., the source Shellnews.net is owned by the Donovans). I am confident that another talented editor could refine the article to make sure it adheres more precisely to Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV). Regards —Eustress talk 05:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. I reversed my "keep" close on this because I was not aware it had been recently relisted when I closed it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- John Vandenberg (chat) 04:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which includes using it as a vehicle to further the agenda of a pair of activists with an axe to grind. The article was created in bad faith and isn't notable enough to merit such an article.  Horologium  (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, merge to an article/section on Shell controversies or move to an article about the website owners. On this occasion, Shell seems to have done the job for them to make the site notable. Failing that, the mentions in the UK broadsheets seems enough. Yes, we will need to watch this article very carefully to check it doesn't become a WP:COATrack, but that alone isn't a reason to delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, forget that, merge relevant information and delete the rest. Having checked the motives behind creating this article and the obvious wish for the article creator to use this as a soapbox, nor prepared to give the benefit of the doubt any more. We have better things to do than police soapbox articles, let's put the relevant information where more people are going to be keeping an eye on it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete on reflection Horologium's point about the article being created in bad faith and made me change my mind, by keeping it we reward that bad faith. Codf1977 (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This article written by John Donovan may be of interest. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC) (or this webcitation.org archive copy Codf1977 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete and merge, mention the leaks from the website on Royal Dutch Shell, as well as mentioning the website by name, also possibly mention the website itself on that page (in notes section?), delete the current page - but transfer useful content. Reason for delete - still have issues with the history of the page and contributors unbalancing the coverage and perception of notability. If someone wants to create a new page at a later date I would look at that without prejudice. (ie still think coverage is inflated due to single purposed efforts of site creators) - Also hold a similar view to Horologium above.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant, neutral material and delete the article from mainspace. Some aspects of the Donovans' dispute with Shell are notable and relevant in the main Royal Dutch Shell article, but I agree with Horologium that an article on the website, which is marginally notable at best, is necessarily a soapbox for the Donovans' views on the matter and their subsequent activities. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The coverage of this web site in major publications like the Wall Street Journal and Fortune shows notability. Wikipedia ought to be able to write about critics of major corporations, however quirky they may be, if they are referenced by the mainstream. User:Johnadonovan has not edited the article since 2009 so it is hard to argue that the promoter of this website is running away with the content of our article. I am familiar with the COI issues since I was one of the editors at WP:COIN who considered these matters when they first appeared in early 2008. The past noticeboard discussions about Johnadonovan can be found through this search.  EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If kept, Rename to Royaldutchshellplc.com (gripe website). However, I think it might be more to the point to merge it by adding a short paragraph to Royal Dutch Shell, with an external link to the site.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable blog it, limited sourcing almost resricted to incidental mentions. I am also leary because of all these citations that link back to his website (in violation of WP:LINKVIO)and not the actual articles elsewhere... not mention the use of SPS for the claims about a third party. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources to have its own article. Blog sites criticizing large corporations are like teeth, we all have a mouthful. This article should have borne in mind that Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, it is an encyclopedia.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Good coverage in reliable sources causes it to easily pass the WP:N requirement. Basket of Puppies  17:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete article, ensure relevant, neutral material appears in the main Royal Dutch Shell article. Some aspects of the Donovans' dispute with Shell are relevant there. I agree with Gavia immer and Horologium that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I would urge blocking of recreation of this title. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 16 October 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.