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. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Hunters[edit]

Skin Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The newspaper sources both, in Polish and English inform that the formal investigation is on-going (example). Real names are protected by the courts. Online references as well as this rather sensationalist article use initials only. In his final court statement one of the convicted said he’s innocent. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until the issue is settled by the Polish legal system, we don't need to have this mostly tentative information cast in stone. Note: all four convictions are being appealed in the Supreme Court of Poland.[1] Poeticbent talk 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a case that has been reported internationally, check the link to the BBC. It quite obviously is notable. That some investigating is ongoing is neither here nor there: BLP has not been violated. On the other hand, the people's convictions were upheld when they appealed. What is the problem and what WP rule has been broken? Please specify which. Also note that there are two interwikis for the article - so this is a notable case. Malick78 (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention crystal ball, yet the article predicts nothing. It just documents past events (the convictions) and says that police are investigating other people. That is a present situation, nothing regarding the future is predicted. Malick78 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, your article link above is 3 months old (written on June 2nd 2008) - do you have something more up-to-date to substantiate your complaint? Secondly, they have been convicted in a fair trial - so that must be reported. The fact that they are appealing, doesn't mean we have predicted the future. Where do you get that from? We have said they have been convicted. Past tense. Hence, there really is no problem. Malick78 (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• According to newspaper Wiadomsci, the defendants have not ruled out appealing the verdict ("Obrońcy nie wykluczyli wniesienia kasacji do Sądu Najwyższego."). Written on July 30th, 2008. Hence, they still haven't appealed. Malick78 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article however states that they have started their sentences and no appeal is ongoing ("Do sądu nie wpłynęły wnioski skazanych lekarzy, którzy odpowiadali w procesie z wolnej stopy, o odroczenie wykonalności kar". Written July 30th. I'm finding it pretty hard to find a current article confirming that an appeal is ongoing. Could you please? Malick78 (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No reason given as to why we should delete. Seems to be a well sourced notable event. A stated above even if an appeal is ongoing (which seems unlikely) stating what's happened to date is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation as it's documenting what has happened not guessing about what may happen. Dpmuk (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is definitely not crystal ball, at 'in the news' we have articles on currently unfolding events such as Hurricane Hanna (2008), let alone events that took place seven years ago, and convictions that took place a year and a half ago. The subject is covered by verifiable secondary sources, and satisfies notability requirements. And wikipedia is explicitly not 'set in stone', but reports on the current situation. If the convictions are overturned, then this can be added without difficulty. If this were an article about the appeals of those convicted, your claim of crystal ball would be valid, in that this would be an unconfirmed event in the future. But this article reports on a case that has taken place in the past, with aspects of the case ongoing. Benea (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - just so my view is nice and clear:) Malick78 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold back your horses. Our article presents all subsequent statements as facts, even though all convictions are being appealed in the Supreme Court of Poland.[2] That's crystal-balling by any stretch of the imagination. Similarly, possible comparison with a hurricane or any other natural disaster would have been a misnomer considering its purely legal status. The Wikipedia article is written like a newspaper article, which is against policy. The article is unstable and unless the editor who created it makes an extra effort to correct its tone, there's no need to have it around. One more thing, please read thoroughly what you quote in your defence, instead of bolding statements (as if we couldn't see). The quoted article says in Polish: "Wyrok nie jest prawomocny. Prokuratura nie wyklucza apelacji." (The sentence is not legally conclusive. Prosecution does not exclude appellations.)[3] --Poeticbent talk 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Horses rapidly receding into the distance: the people in question are in prison. That's quite conclusive. Your article is 3 months old, so could well be out of date... But what the hell, even if there is/were an appeal - so what? Add that to the article! Edit! Don't delete the whole article using fallacious 'crystal ball' arguments which have nothing to do with anything. WP can comment on developing situations - and no predicting the future is necessary. Malick78 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent, have you actually read WP:CRYSTAL? If the article were about a future event then your argument might be valid. If the article were about the appeal process, it might be valid. But you've chosen a criteria that simply does not apply. At most this is a content dispute about whether to refer to those convicted of actually being guilty of the crime. They have been convicted, this can be reported. They may be appealing, this can be reported too. But however things develop, even if they have their convictions quashed, it does not alter the notability of the article. And now you're trying to claim that the tone of the article, and its instability are reasons for deletion. They are not. Benea (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe newspaper reports will also be reporting on it as if it's fact. The fact that they've been found guilty of committing the murders means we are perfectally justified in assuming that it's a fact that they've committed them - although not a legal professional I believe this is the case legally and IMO is certainly the case morally. But even that's a moot point in a deletion discussion as that's no reason to delete the article, just change it. The case is now so notable that even if they are later found incocent it would still easily meet our notability guidelines so would still be kept. Was writing this at the same time as Benea hence the similarity's in comment are accidental. Dpmuk (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Poeticbent has failed to cite any valid reasons listed in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, can we just end this? (And hey, WP:CRYSTAL isn't listed) Malick78 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion[edit]

For further information please see WP:DEL#REASON

1. Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
2. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

--Poeticbent talk 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, vaguely quoting policies does not provide sufficient reasoning. How do these policies apply to the article? In what way is it violating them? This especially applies to your second 'reason' - how is this not suitable for an encyclopaedia? Your first reason, that this may be a breach of WP:BLP is the only possible justification for a deletion that I can see, so I'll examine that a bit more closely. I'm assuming your argument is: Since the convicted claim to be innocent, then we cannot assert that they are guilty. This is not necessarily an issue at all, the actual policy page says that if there are multiple reliable third party sources available, wikipedia can document them. For an example it gives A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. And it expands If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article. Since the facts in the article are well cited and sourced to multiple reliable secondary sources, I see no BLP violations here. So far you've tried WP:Crystal ball, the article's instability, tone issues, BLP violations and the vague argument that its just not suitable for some reason, in descending order. Do you want to go for WP:Notability next? Benea (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would appreciate if you refrained from wp:baiting me. My reasons for this nomination are pretty much one and the same, no matter how you divide them. The article states in its opening line: "The "Skin Hunters"[1] ("Łowcy skór" in Polish) is the media nickname for 4 hospital casualty workers from the Polish city of Łódź, who murdered at least 5 patients..." I repeat, these are statements of facts and yet, the convicted claim to be innocent. If you don't know how to implement the wp:npov guideline, than don't write at all. I'm not in any way obliged to fix anything. By the same token, WP:AFD is still the most appropriate venue to express my concerns. --Poeticbent talk 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's absurd. So if anyone is convicted of a crime, WP cannot write about it if they 'claim' to be innocent? A fair trial, that took 5 years to prepare, said they were guilty... and one 'claim' of innocence outweighs that? Secondly, FYI, putting an NPOV tag on the article would have been the "most appropriate" thing to do - not taking it to AFD. That is just a waste of people's time. We could be improving other articles... but here we are, arguing with you. Malick78 (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator, you are obliged to give your reasons for thinking why this article should be deleted. If it is for a violation of WP:BLP please state this, and explain why the article violates this policy, and we can consider them objectively. But don't string out a list of policies that do not apply, and of objections that are not criteria for deletion. You have continually failed to explain your reasons, and have vaguely quoted policies that you do not appear to have read. The fact that you went straight to afd over what is essentially a dispute over terminology is proof that this nomination was ill-conceived. Please I beg you - what policy does this article violate and why? Benea (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I beg you User:Benea to first, please ease up on the passive aggressive language and stop accusing me of not reading policies I quote. There are not as many of them as you claim I strung out. The very first principle of wp:live is wp: neutral point of view meaning: an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. That's not a dispute over terminology. And please, try to assume good faith in your personal assessments of my motives. --Poeticbent talk 20:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I’ve seen it so many times, editors claiming that with the little work the article is salvageable; voting on that premise, and than doing nothing to improve it. Meanwhile, the author of the article is increasingly combative,[4] which is not a good prospect for an improvement. --Poeticbent talk 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but why AFD instead of an NPOV tag? It was the wrong way to tackle the problem you perceived to exist. Malick78 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Poeticbent - it would appear that your reading of these policies is very different from ours. I respect your right to intpret these policies differently but as I'm sure you're aware WIkipedia works on consensus sio I suggest you stop trying to change our minds with arguements that, by common consesus, don't stand up - I will happily listen to a new arguement if previous cosensus holds that it's a valid arguement. I'm not going to comment on this discussion any more except if, what IMO is, a valid arguement for deletion is given (seems unlikely IMO) as the result of this discussion is, IMO, obviously going to be keep and I've spent enough time on it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No valid reason to delete has been presented. Crystal does not apply to documenting past events. Any "newspaper tone" can be cleaned up without AfD. BLP is not violated as we have reliable sources -- court convictions. Renata (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per excellent points by Dpmuk: "The fact that they've been found guilty of committing the murders means we are perfectlly justified in assuming that it's a fact that they've committed them". If they do succeed in appealing or look as though they might succeed, we can reword things. Until then I see no reason not to assume the convictions are valid unless anyone produces a source suggesting they're controversial or disputed. (I came here from the debate at Template talk:Did you know). Olaf Davis | Talk 08:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Poetic, please read this from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD: "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." Let's eliminate the NPOV line of discussion shall we? Malick78 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to all. This debate isn't even closed, and yet the author is already edit warring and removing warnings suggested by himself instead of this AfD nomination, without a sign of any second thought. Isn't that inflammatory? --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked you to provide reasons for your tags (such as the one about it being like a "magazine" article) and you instead talked about other (IMHO tangential) issues. Thus I removed them. Furthermore, some of your tags specifically said "see the talk page for details". Yet on the talk page, you gave no details. And didn't when asked. The tags were therefore anti-productive, and being used, it would seem, just to spoil the look of the article. In a rather inflammatory way. Ironic eh... Malick78 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:56, 7 September 2008 (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.