Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asbestosis - Compensation and Liability Disputes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was - kept
This suddenly sprang into existence after I reverted a very long similar edit on asbestosis. Basically, it outlines the liability issues after asbestos exposure. But it is very long, heavily biased towards compensation and probably more suitable for a trial lawyer's resource. Also, it is mainly about asbestos-related malignancies, which is radically different from the disease asbestosis (which occurs only in miners and others with very high asbestos exposure). JFW | T@lk 21:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- In the present form, (previous, 19/12/04) it is largely a collection of referenced but uninterpreted quotes from various (mainly UK) sources. JFW | T@lk 23:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, please JFW | T@lk 21:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Request for non-deletion - This is undoubtedly an important and very relevant topic and the above administrator is most certainly correct in insisting on an unbiassed presentation of the facts. If the article, in its present form, is (was - already modified) considered to be biassed, shouldn't it be corrected, not deleted?! The factual references, including several to the British Govt.'s Health and Safety Executive site, and reports published in internationally-respected neswpapers are clearly indicated, - surely this should be recognised as a sincere attempt to offer a balanced overview. The article does not seem unduly long. I hope the Wikipedia community will help to edit in such a way as to achieve appropriate balance. It does not seem in key with Wiki philosophy to simply delete. (I'm sure the anonymity of this submission may cause negative commments, but not all contributors maintain a civilised level of conversation in their exchanges of views, - I stress this is NOT the case regarding this particular question). Changes have already been made in an attempt to address the issues raised. Unsigned by User:200.165.195.25.
- Please be advised that anonymous votes do not count. Wiki philosophy is not to simply delete, and often merge&redirect is advised, based on community opinion. JFW | T@lk
- I've can't find any policy statement that says that anon votes don't count. Could someone please point me to the relevant page? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 04:30, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think there's an exact policy which says "they don't count", but there's always Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which says: ... administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. - Vague | Rant 00:35, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- I read the above to say that, unless there is "strong evidence of bad faith" anonymous votes do count. Some other policy it might be good to remember, in this context, would be: Assume good faith, Don't bite the newcomers and Wikilove Paul August ☎ 06:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, since that page was written there was so much abuse, vandalism and sockpuppetry in VfD discussions that the de facto standard had to become much stricter. Despite everyone's best attempts to assume good faith, anonymous and new voters are likely to be steeply discounted by the admin making the final decision. That's why we encourage everyone to get a free account and require everyone to sign their comments. Rossami (talk)
- If our policy needs changing we should change it, otherwise we should follow it. Paul August ☎ 14:26, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, since that page was written there was so much abuse, vandalism and sockpuppetry in VfD discussions that the de facto standard had to become much stricter. Despite everyone's best attempts to assume good faith, anonymous and new voters are likely to be steeply discounted by the admin making the final decision. That's why we encourage everyone to get a free account and require everyone to sign their comments. Rossami (talk)
- I read the above to say that, unless there is "strong evidence of bad faith" anonymous votes do count. Some other policy it might be good to remember, in this context, would be: Assume good faith, Don't bite the newcomers and Wikilove Paul August ☎ 06:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think there's an exact policy which says "they don't count", but there's always Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which says: ... administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. - Vague | Rant 00:35, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Then we are in full agreement on the correct way to deal with this issue, modifications according to community opinion. I have no "axe to grind" here, just maintaining the ideals of Wikipedia (with the right to remain annonymous, and fully accepting that I will therefore not vote). I am a little surprised at the apparent intensity of the reaction, the [1] article on health issues associated with the effects of tobacco smoking, for example, is far more detailed !
- I've can't find any policy statement that says that anon votes don't count. Could someone please point me to the relevant page? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 04:30, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Absestos exposure is rare compared to smoking. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Please be advised that anonymous votes do not count. Wiki philosophy is not to simply delete, and often merge&redirect is advised, based on community opinion. JFW | T@lk
- Keep. In no way meets criteria for deletion, just needs more contributions. Dan100 23:37, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
- What, then, is its merit? JFW | T@lk 23:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Replies edited out at this point - please consult "history - 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 Jfdwolff (rm more rant - this question was directed at Dan100)" for more details if required. (diff).
- Please do not remove comments by other users! To reply to JFW's question, the article's merit is irrelevant, what would be relevant is an explanation of how this article requires deletion under the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Dan100 00:15, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- The comment was a repeat of material from the page, and added nothing to the discussion. The note that "asbestos still kills" does not pertain to this discussion. As for your vote, it would have been nice if you had addressed the specific concerns I outlined at the top. JFW | T@lk 00:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't need to. You, as the person asking for deletion, need to explain how it meets grounds for deletion as per policy. Dan100 00:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- "if the reply had not been edited out, the community would see more easily that the somewhat strident comment "asbestos still kills" was NOT THAT OF THE CONTRIBUTOR and that, in fact, a British Government agency (the Health and Safety Executive, used this "colourful language" on their website, - so somebody considers the content important. It's a pity that the full information and accompanying links were edited out. The community can still read them in the "history" and make their own decisions.
- I did. The page is a bunch of quotes. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 00:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Which, if you read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, isn't grounds for deletion. Dan100 00:58, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes it's "just a bunch of quotes", but more important - is the content of the quotes relevent - if not - DELETE) - if "yes" - are the sources reliable (no - DELETE) - if yes - edit to a more appropriate form, please !
- What, then, is its merit? JFW | T@lk 23:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Reluctant keep, and then work out what to do with it. It's useful material, probably needs refactoring, eventually perhaps delete this title, but one or another way we need to work out what to do with this, not throw it away. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - violates the spirit of What Wikipedia is not if not the letter. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Could a shorter version be merged with the Asbestosis or Mesothelioma ~ mlk ✉ 01:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
- Delete. Vacuum c 02:02, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - needs cleaning up though. Paul August ☎ 04:12, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, merge the useful bits with Asbestosis. --fvw* 08:12, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC), and still at 00:56, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
- I would then recommend merge with mesothelioma, which is what the page is actually about now. JFW | T@lk 08:24, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP - text needs "Wikifying". Wikityke
- Merge appropriate information to mesothelioma and delete - Skysmith 11:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge with mesothelioma and delete. --Viriditas | Talk 12:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should consider where a member of the general public, consulting Wikipedia, would be most likely to look for information on asbestos-related diseases and related matters? - Via a link from an article on asbestosis, or merged within an article entitled "mesothelioma"?--Wikityke
- Valid point. But would this not result in an unduly long item?
- Has your original request for deletion, now been modified to "merge" or "standalone" (or not)?
- Comment: Merge and delete is not a generally accepted option in VfD discussions because it destroys the contribution history (which must be preserved to comply with GFDL). You can work around that if you cut-and-paste the history page into the new article's Talk page but, by the time you do that, you might as well just merge and redirect. Rossami (talk)
- SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN (20/12/04) AND COULD USEFULLY BE EVALUATED (RE_EVALUATED) BY CONTRIBUTORS TO THE CURRENT DEBATE, if the participants consider appropriate**.
- Keep. Zachlipton 00:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as a standalone article because this issue is notable enough to deserve one and would fit awkwardly into other pages. Summarize/paraphrase the quotes. Kappa 01:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Still keep, as per my vote above, but post-cleanup I can now no longer see any case at all for deletion. Dan100 09:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The legal issues are sufficient to justify a stand-alone article. It's still a long way from complete or NPOV but those are issues for Clean-Up, not deletion. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Intrigue 07:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. There is a large amount of stuff that could be said about asbestos liability issues, etc. that doesn't really fit in any other article without swamping it. Probably a good amount of cleanup still required, and maybe a name change, but that's still a keep. —Morven 16:54, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and make better. All I wanted to say has been said. --Billfred 13:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Contributors here may consider this related talk item on asbestosis to be relevant to the discussion Talk:Asbestosis Unsigned by User:200.216.31.201
- Keep and send to cleanup - David Gerard 23:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Don't delete. anthony 警告 22:23, 27 Dec 2004 (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.