Talk:El Marino/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sfs90 (talk · contribs) 03:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Possibly self-promotion (Diego Grez, who created and expanded the article, is also the owner of El Marino) and WP:COI. --Sfs90 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Sfs90: Indeed, I am the owner of El Marino, it is pretty clear just by looking at my username and reading the article. However, as I told you on the DYK nomination, I minimalized my role as much as I could, and only mentioned my name once, as the founder of Memoria Pichilemina. I asked some helpers at #wikipedia-en-help, too, to check whether the article was neutral or not; all of them concluded it was neutral. Yes, you could argue I wrote the article to promote my website, but I don't actually need such promotion, it has some social network profiles with over one hundred followers, even more than El Mercurio. I actually wrote it, because I felt Augusto Ramírez, who founded this newspaper and El Puerto, needed to have his biography on Wikipedia. Although not many details are available on his life, I included most important stuff on him on the Background section. Additionally, the section on the website I founded, which later became El Marino, is not given undue weight. I actually thank you, too, for removing my portrait from the article, I kind of felt unconfortable with it. Anyway, if you are up for the review process of El Marino, please go ahead, I think I have made things clear enough up there. If you have any questions, or anything, just ping me. --Diego Grez (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Sfs90: I'd say that's all the more reason for an independent reviewer like you to take this on. Diego has obviously put a lot of effort into developing a thorough encyclopaedia article, so I'm sure he'd be responsive to any specific concerns you had about the tone or content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's worth noting that editing articles you have a close connection with isn't against the rules; rather, these people are instructed to be open about such connections so their contributions can be viewed more thoroughly for bias. To me, it doesn't look like there's any here. Tezero (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Sfs90: I'd say that's all the more reason for an independent reviewer like you to take this on. Diego has obviously put a lot of effort into developing a thorough encyclopaedia article, so I'm sure he'd be responsive to any specific concerns you had about the tone or content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Sfs90: Indeed, I am the owner of El Marino, it is pretty clear just by looking at my username and reading the article. However, as I told you on the DYK nomination, I minimalized my role as much as I could, and only mentioned my name once, as the founder of Memoria Pichilemina. I asked some helpers at #wikipedia-en-help, too, to check whether the article was neutral or not; all of them concluded it was neutral. Yes, you could argue I wrote the article to promote my website, but I don't actually need such promotion, it has some social network profiles with over one hundred followers, even more than El Mercurio. I actually wrote it, because I felt Augusto Ramírez, who founded this newspaper and El Puerto, needed to have his biography on Wikipedia. Although not many details are available on his life, I included most important stuff on him on the Background section. Additionally, the section on the website I founded, which later became El Marino, is not given undue weight. I actually thank you, too, for removing my portrait from the article, I kind of felt unconfortable with it. Anyway, if you are up for the review process of El Marino, please go ahead, I think I have made things clear enough up there. If you have any questions, or anything, just ping me. --Diego Grez (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
How about starting by asking the obvious question - what third-party sourcing is there for the assertion that a 2014 website is in any meaningful way a continuation of a newspaper that ceased publication in 1917? I can see no reason whatsoever to consider the two to be connected, except in the mind of the creator of the latter, and accordingly suggest that there are no legitimate grounds to include the 2014 website in an article on the 1917 newspaper, and vice versa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- ...Hey, maybe you're right. Now that I look at it, it looks like they just share the name. Perhaps the website should be split off into a new page; it looks like it's covered by at least a few secondary sources, e.g. El Expreso de la Costa and Pichilemunews. Tezero (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that the creator of this article has connections with the 'secondary sources' too. This article seems to be yet another episode in his long-running efforts to use Wikipedia for self-promotion (see in particular his edits under the User:Küñall account, and his relentless efforts to crowbar his entirely-non-notable self into his article on his school. Along with his creation of articles and categories with no other purpose than to get his name blue-linked, and his creation of articles about his likewise non-notable schoolmates, etc, etc, etc...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- And for proof of the connections between the creator of this article and the 'secondary sources' see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memoria Pichilemina, and the comment by Küñall/Diego Grez: "I do write for El Expreso..." [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have not denied that I've written for El Expreso, but it's something ocassional and I have nothing to do with what the editor decides to publish, as for the news articles cited. I have collaborated with both Pichilemunews and Expreso with local history articles, as I pointed out on the link you've provided, but there's nothing else between them and me. As for the assertion that the 2013 website is a continuation of El Marino, I have acquired the rights for the name (articles are public domain, and permission was not needed for that), and there is a document from the National Library of Chile (which keeps a register of all newspapers published in Chile) which states it is a continuation of the 1917 publication. But primary sources are generally not accepted here so I omitted that. As for the self-promotion stuff, that was already explained in the AfD nomination you too provided. In this specific case, my role on the newspaper was deliberately omitted as much as possible; in fact, my name is only mentioned as I founded Memoria Pichilemina, the rest is all credited to the newspaper on its own. I have written this article with respect to Wikipedia's rules. Diego Grez (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, I don't like the tone you use on your comments to refer to me and my work on Wikipedia, which I have edited for over eight years. A couple of infamous episodes of my history here cannot lead you to that somewhat egotistic vision. "Relentless efforts", "entirely-non-notable self", etc., are not really friendly word choices. I hope you change your tone in future discussions. I don't doubt your desire is to help here, but... being friendly won't kill you. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, Memoria Pichilemina, the personal website you created, and wrote a Wikipedia article about (citing sources you were connected with), only for it to be deleted for a clear COI, and for a complete lack of independent evidence of notability... 01:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did not create that article, actually. Yes, I was against the nomination for its deletion because I felt it deserved a place on Wikipedia, the community said otherwise, and that's it, I did not go for it again. Regarding the sources, as I told you, I did not put pressure on the editors of those sources for them to publish anything. I have written local history articles for them, and that's all, my work does not go beyond that. Diego Grez (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah yes, you are right, you didn't create the article. Instead you asked for it to be created, stating your connection with the website but entirely failing to make clear that you were also connected to the 'local newspapers' you cited as evidence of notability. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, I never denied I collaborated with these newspapers, but I have (and never had) any influence on what the editors decided to publish. My collaborations included articles related to the history of Pichilemu, and nothing else. Indeed, I could have made things better, but, I reiterate that my work for them was to write a couple of history articles, and that was it. Diego Grez (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- For the benefit of others, the COI noticeboard discussion on the Memoria Pichilemina article, including the mysterious tale of the Russian-speaking Wikipedian who chose to create an article on 'Грез Каниете, Диего' (Yup - Grez Cañete, Diego) on the Russian Wikipedia, entirely of his own accord, and without any assistance from the subject... [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- If that's true, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not your fault if they decided to pick up your website to write about, or even if they were partially inspired by your work there; they have to find out about it somehow. Tezero (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, I never denied I collaborated with these newspapers, but I have (and never had) any influence on what the editors decided to publish. My collaborations included articles related to the history of Pichilemu, and nothing else. Indeed, I could have made things better, but, I reiterate that my work for them was to write a couple of history articles, and that was it. Diego Grez (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah yes, you are right, you didn't create the article. Instead you asked for it to be created, stating your connection with the website but entirely failing to make clear that you were also connected to the 'local newspapers' you cited as evidence of notability. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did not create that article, actually. Yes, I was against the nomination for its deletion because I felt it deserved a place on Wikipedia, the community said otherwise, and that's it, I did not go for it again. Regarding the sources, as I told you, I did not put pressure on the editors of those sources for them to publish anything. I have written local history articles for them, and that's all, my work does not go beyond that. Diego Grez (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, Memoria Pichilemina, the personal website you created, and wrote a Wikipedia article about (citing sources you were connected with), only for it to be deleted for a clear COI, and for a complete lack of independent evidence of notability... 01:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Meanwhile, we still have an unanswered question - what independent sourcing is there for the assertion that a 2014 website is in any meaningful way a continuation of a newspaper that ceased publication in 1917? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have responded your question earlier. "As for the assertion that the 2013 website is a continuation of El Marino, I have acquired the rights for the name (articles are public domain, and permission was not needed for that), and there is a document from the National Library of Chile (which keeps a register of all newspapers published in Chile) which states it is a continuation of the 1917 publication. But primary sources are generally not accepted here so I omitted that." As for the procedure at the National Library, I have explained the process on the nomination of this article for DYK. --Diego Grez (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- So you requested to 'continue' El Murino, and the National Library agreed? That isn't an independent source for anything - it is a statement from you that you've done something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did not use it on the article precisely because it is a primary source, as I said before. The document in question is similar to this one, of Memoriapichilemina.cl. Diego Grez (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is not an independent source. And unless and until such an independent source can be provided, this article should not be claiming that your website is a continuation of a newspaper last published in 1917. All you have is documentation proving that you have created a website with the same name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You can think of it whichever way you want. I have provided complete responses to your queries, but my "relentless efforts" are not going to change your biased understanding of my explanations. Regards, --Diego Grez (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since the article provides no independent evidence whatsoever that your website is in any meaningful sense a continuation of the 1917 newspaper, I am going to remove all references to it from the article. And I would suggest that you refrain from editing the article further in this regard, as recommended under Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- What the heck is going on with you, Andy? Seriously, what is your problem? I am not going to stand for your conflictive, sarcastic, and humiliating attitude, your vision is biased and, I strongly suggest you to stop attacking me, by making false claims such as that the National Library is not an independent source to me and El Marino. Your removal of content is total vandalism. Diego Grez (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- My problem is that you show a complete contempt for Wikipedia policies, and have repeatedly, in blatant disregard for Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines, have created content for no other purpose than to insert your entirely non-notable self into the encyclopaedia. So yes, I am 'biased' against your contemptible self-serving behaviour - as any reasonable Wikipedia contributor would be. And no, removing your pathetic coatracking of your entirely non-notable website into an article on a 1917 newspaper is not 'vandalism', as anyone other than a pompous egomaniac like yourself could plainly see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am not responding to your personal attacks. I was advised to add the government-made sources that I possess, as references on the article. I have requested the government (via transparency law) to make these documents public, online, so that we can have better access to them later. The process should take a month (20 working days). I hope that you understand, and let's stop this childish behaviour from both of us. By the way, stop attacking me. Kind regards, Diego Grez (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The 'government sources' (assuming that they exist) will tell us nothing beyond the fact that you have registered a website under the name 'El Marino'. They are not in any shape or form independent evidence that your personal website has any meaningful historical connection with a newspaper published for a few months in 1917. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- That is only your biased vision, and not what the documents actually say. Regards, Diego Grez (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- So far, you've provided no evidence that these supposed documents say anything... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- That is only your biased vision, and not what the documents actually say. Regards, Diego Grez (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The 'government sources' (assuming that they exist) will tell us nothing beyond the fact that you have registered a website under the name 'El Marino'. They are not in any shape or form independent evidence that your personal website has any meaningful historical connection with a newspaper published for a few months in 1917. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am not responding to your personal attacks. I was advised to add the government-made sources that I possess, as references on the article. I have requested the government (via transparency law) to make these documents public, online, so that we can have better access to them later. The process should take a month (20 working days). I hope that you understand, and let's stop this childish behaviour from both of us. By the way, stop attacking me. Kind regards, Diego Grez (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- My problem is that you show a complete contempt for Wikipedia policies, and have repeatedly, in blatant disregard for Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines, have created content for no other purpose than to insert your entirely non-notable self into the encyclopaedia. So yes, I am 'biased' against your contemptible self-serving behaviour - as any reasonable Wikipedia contributor would be. And no, removing your pathetic coatracking of your entirely non-notable website into an article on a 1917 newspaper is not 'vandalism', as anyone other than a pompous egomaniac like yourself could plainly see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- What the heck is going on with you, Andy? Seriously, what is your problem? I am not going to stand for your conflictive, sarcastic, and humiliating attitude, your vision is biased and, I strongly suggest you to stop attacking me, by making false claims such as that the National Library is not an independent source to me and El Marino. Your removal of content is total vandalism. Diego Grez (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since the article provides no independent evidence whatsoever that your website is in any meaningful sense a continuation of the 1917 newspaper, I am going to remove all references to it from the article. And I would suggest that you refrain from editing the article further in this regard, as recommended under Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You can think of it whichever way you want. I have provided complete responses to your queries, but my "relentless efforts" are not going to change your biased understanding of my explanations. Regards, --Diego Grez (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is not an independent source. And unless and until such an independent source can be provided, this article should not be claiming that your website is a continuation of a newspaper last published in 1917. All you have is documentation proving that you have created a website with the same name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did not use it on the article precisely because it is a primary source, as I said before. The document in question is similar to this one, of Memoriapichilemina.cl. Diego Grez (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- So you requested to 'continue' El Murino, and the National Library agreed? That isn't an independent source for anything - it is a statement from you that you've done something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, time out. Diego Grez, what Andy is trying to communicate is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place to promote oneself or one's own work, so if someone's adding supplementary media to an article (like, say, an online continuation of a newspaper run by a different agency, a web-series based on a manga, or a fangame based on a commercially released video game), one has to provide third-party sources that mention this media. Otherwise, anyone could make a continuation of an old newspaper or whatever and include it on Wikipedia - articles would be gigantic. Now, having said that, I'm not necessarily saying this is your intention. Can you provide some kind of confirmation from either a third-party source you've never worked with (personally, I don't think your unrelated association with these other websites is a reasonable objection on Andy's part, but maybe you can prove him wrong further), or someone associated with the original newspaper? (Obviously, no one's going to still be alive who worked on it then, but maybe someone related to them or who works for its old publisher.) Tezero (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- My intention has not been to forcefully get a place for myself on Wikipedia, first proof is that I only mentioned myself once in the article, and deliberately omitted my role on it as much as I could. For example, that #NoMasPuntillazos campaign, media gave me the credit for it, but I did not mention myself at all on the paragraph that covers that part of the website history, and did so precisely because I am not here to promote myself. Andy is also wrongly assuming that because one has to register before the National Library, it is not independent anymore, come on. It is obviously an independent State entity; so is the provincial government, which also states El Marino online is the continuation of the 1917 newspaper, in two documents that I've found -which I've also requested the government to make public on their transparency website. I've been advised that using those government sources is fine. I have not worked for the National Library. I have not worked for the Province Government. How couldn't they be "independent"? Diego Grez (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your act of registration wasn't independent - you did it. And it isn't evidence that your 2014 website has any meaningful historical connection with a newspaper published in 1917. Sharing a name isn't by any stretch of the imagination a historical connection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, if he found two government documents that stated his website is a continuation of the newspaper, how aren't those good enough sources? Tezero (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- 'Found' them? He has already told us that the documents concern his registration of the name 'El Marino'. As to whether these supposed documents say anything whatsoever about a newspaper published in 1917 I have no idea - but they aren't a third-party source either way. They are primary-source documents confirming his personal actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see that Andy has already reverted my addition of new references, which clearly state it is "the continuation of the 1917 publication of the same name". This is humiliating. Diego Grez (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The documents aren't third-party - they record the fact that you personally have registered a website under the name of 'El Marino'. They are accordingly not independent evidence that anyone but you considers there to be any meaningful historical connection between the 1917 newspaper and the website you are promoting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK. I've gotten enough of you. @Tezero:, what do you think? Are these sources acceptable or they are not independent enough, because they are government-made, a corrupt entity I used to back me up, in such a lie and invention, for me to desperately get an article on Wikipedia? Ooh, egomaniac me!!!!! Diego Grez (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- If what Andy is saying is true, those don't count as third-party sources. Whom else might we contact to assess whether the website is a continuation of the paper? Tezero (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- That is his understanding of how things work here in Chile. I will explain it again: when someone decides to publish a newspaper, you have to complete a registration document that contains the name of the new publication, URL, name of the owner, editor and sub-editor, address and telephone, attaching also documents that confirmed the purchase of rights to use the name and news archives of El Marino, with photocopies of ID cards. These were sent to the Province Government of Cardenal Caro, which sends them to the National Library of Chile, which keeps a register of all publications in the country. The official documents cited prove the information presented to them was valid, and such appreciation was in no way urged or influenced by me or El Marino as a newspaper. I only complied with law requirements. In fact, two of the sources are written by the governor of Cardenal Caro Province, Teresa Núñez, and the other was redacted by the person in charge of the Legal Deposit section of the Nat. Library. Diego Grez (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, then maybe we can wait for the registration documents to come back, if the vetting process indeed verified that your website was a continuation of the old newspaper, all permissions included. Tezero (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The documents cited are public, but are not online. I could arrange to send digital copies to OTRS of the print copies I do possess, until the government makes them publicly available online. --Diego Grez (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- What Diego Grez says merely confirms what I have been saying all along. The documents record the fact that he has registered a website under the name of 'El Marino'. They do not record the opinion of any third-party source that this 2014 website is in any meaningful way a historical continuation of a newspaper published for a few months in 1917. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you care to read and translate the sources I cited, and which you removed, they all state it is the "continuation of the 1917 publication"... but as I said earlier, my "relentless efforts" won't change your biased vision that this is all made because I want a place on this website. Gosh, the imagination. Diego Grez (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- A simple question. Did the government reach this conclusion (that it was 'a continuation of the 1917 publication') themselves, without input from you, or did you tell them that your website was 'a continuation'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think it could still be enough if the government took effort to verify his claim to them that it was a continuation of El Marino. Tezero (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry? You think government departments exist to verify claims that 2014 websites are 'a continuation' of newspapers published in 1917? And what are they supposed to be verifying anyway? That it has the same name? We know that already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not solely for that, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were part of the process for copyright reasons. Especially considering it's in Chile, where I have no idea how this stuff works. Tezero (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Any copyright (on what?) would have expired long ago. And we are getting sidetracked here - it should be noted that the simple facts of the matter are that Diego Grez has created an article supposedly on a 1917 newspaper, and then instead dedicated almost half the content of his own personal website, while providing precisely zero evidence of any historical continuity between the two. His efforts to cloud the issue by reference to government documents registering the name should not distract us from the fact that an article on a 1917 newspaper is not the appropriate place for coatracked self-promotion of a contributor's personal website. We write articles about subjects, not titles, and the fact that Diego Grez has chosen to name his website after the newspaper does not make it the same subject at all. There is precisely zero historical continuity here, the two publications are different subjects, each of which has to demonstrate notability on its own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know off the top of your head the public domain laws for Chile? And it's absolutely related, because if whatever agency handled his request indeed contacted someone related to the original newspaper or otherwise verified a connection, then we have a connection between the two. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't know the public domain laws of Chile - and neither, by your own admission, do you. Accordingly, since we don't base decisions regarding article content on laws we think might possibly exist but have no evidence for, and on entirely undocumented contacts with people we don't know exist either, we are stuck with the simple fact that we have no evidence whatsoever for any historical continuity between the 1917 newspaper and Diego Grez's personal website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming to know anything about them, either. I'm merely suggesting a way in which proof could be found, but it's ultimately Diego's responsibility to do so. Tezero (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)It is. And until such proof is found, the article on the newspaper should not be used as a coatrack for the promotion of Diego's website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming to know anything about them, either. I'm merely suggesting a way in which proof could be found, but it's ultimately Diego's responsibility to do so. Tezero (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't know the public domain laws of Chile - and neither, by your own admission, do you. Accordingly, since we don't base decisions regarding article content on laws we think might possibly exist but have no evidence for, and on entirely undocumented contacts with people we don't know exist either, we are stuck with the simple fact that we have no evidence whatsoever for any historical continuity between the 1917 newspaper and Diego Grez's personal website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know off the top of your head the public domain laws for Chile? And it's absolutely related, because if whatever agency handled his request indeed contacted someone related to the original newspaper or otherwise verified a connection, then we have a connection between the two. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Any copyright (on what?) would have expired long ago. And we are getting sidetracked here - it should be noted that the simple facts of the matter are that Diego Grez has created an article supposedly on a 1917 newspaper, and then instead dedicated almost half the content of his own personal website, while providing precisely zero evidence of any historical continuity between the two. His efforts to cloud the issue by reference to government documents registering the name should not distract us from the fact that an article on a 1917 newspaper is not the appropriate place for coatracked self-promotion of a contributor's personal website. We write articles about subjects, not titles, and the fact that Diego Grez has chosen to name his website after the newspaper does not make it the same subject at all. There is precisely zero historical continuity here, the two publications are different subjects, each of which has to demonstrate notability on its own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not solely for that, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were part of the process for copyright reasons. Especially considering it's in Chile, where I have no idea how this stuff works. Tezero (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry? You think government departments exist to verify claims that 2014 websites are 'a continuation' of newspapers published in 1917? And what are they supposed to be verifying anyway? That it has the same name? We know that already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think it could still be enough if the government took effort to verify his claim to them that it was a continuation of El Marino. Tezero (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- A simple question. Did the government reach this conclusion (that it was 'a continuation of the 1917 publication') themselves, without input from you, or did you tell them that your website was 'a continuation'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you care to read and translate the sources I cited, and which you removed, they all state it is the "continuation of the 1917 publication"... but as I said earlier, my "relentless efforts" won't change your biased vision that this is all made because I want a place on this website. Gosh, the imagination. Diego Grez (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, then maybe we can wait for the registration documents to come back, if the vetting process indeed verified that your website was a continuation of the old newspaper, all permissions included. Tezero (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- That is his understanding of how things work here in Chile. I will explain it again: when someone decides to publish a newspaper, you have to complete a registration document that contains the name of the new publication, URL, name of the owner, editor and sub-editor, address and telephone, attaching also documents that confirmed the purchase of rights to use the name and news archives of El Marino, with photocopies of ID cards. These were sent to the Province Government of Cardenal Caro, which sends them to the National Library of Chile, which keeps a register of all publications in the country. The official documents cited prove the information presented to them was valid, and such appreciation was in no way urged or influenced by me or El Marino as a newspaper. I only complied with law requirements. In fact, two of the sources are written by the governor of Cardenal Caro Province, Teresa Núñez, and the other was redacted by the person in charge of the Legal Deposit section of the Nat. Library. Diego Grez (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- If what Andy is saying is true, those don't count as third-party sources. Whom else might we contact to assess whether the website is a continuation of the paper? Tezero (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK. I've gotten enough of you. @Tezero:, what do you think? Are these sources acceptable or they are not independent enough, because they are government-made, a corrupt entity I used to back me up, in such a lie and invention, for me to desperately get an article on Wikipedia? Ooh, egomaniac me!!!!! Diego Grez (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The documents aren't third-party - they record the fact that you personally have registered a website under the name of 'El Marino'. They are accordingly not independent evidence that anyone but you considers there to be any meaningful historical connection between the 1917 newspaper and the website you are promoting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see that Andy has already reverted my addition of new references, which clearly state it is "the continuation of the 1917 publication of the same name". This is humiliating. Diego Grez (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- 'Found' them? He has already told us that the documents concern his registration of the name 'El Marino'. As to whether these supposed documents say anything whatsoever about a newspaper published in 1917 I have no idea - but they aren't a third-party source either way. They are primary-source documents confirming his personal actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, if he found two government documents that stated his website is a continuation of the newspaper, how aren't those good enough sources? Tezero (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your act of registration wasn't independent - you did it. And it isn't evidence that your 2014 website has any meaningful historical connection with a newspaper published in 1917. Sharing a name isn't by any stretch of the imagination a historical connection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Registration is (beside that it is a legally mandatory) also made for copyright purposes, I am required to deposit copies of the material generated by El Marino, in this case, on the National Library. Two major laws rule newspapers and other publications, the Law of Intellectual Property, and the Law of Press (No. 19,733); these are publicly available on leychile.cl, and there's an article on the intellectual property law here on Wikipedia, which summarizes it perfectly well. Articles of the 1917 newspaper are public domain, however, permission was needed from Ramírez's succession to make a "continuation" of the newspaper. As I have repeatedly stated, those documents were provided to the province government, which in turn gave them to the National Library. We could assume they inspected upon those documents, and for them to state it was "the continuation of the 1917 newspaper", they should have reached the conclusion the documents were valid. Diego Grez (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Now we're getting somewhere. It should be sufficient to cite some public record of Ramirez's descendants' approval to attest a connection between the old and new versions of El Marino. Tezero (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- That wouldn't alter the fact that a 1917 newspaper isn't a 2014 website. Two different subjects, two different articles... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, but it would. A 1917 newspaper isn't Ramirez, either, yet there he is on the page, uncontested. Why? He has a demonstrated relationship to the 1917 paper such that an article on the paper would be incomplete without him. Tezero (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody is disputing that the editor of the newspaper is connected to the newspaper he edited. Why is that supposed to be relevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Because you just said that a 1917 newspaper isn't a 2014 website. I'm explaining why, assuming that sources can be found to attribute the connection as has happened with Ramirez (which, of course, has not happened yet, but you asserted that this was a separate argument), that isn't a very good argument for the website's exclusion. Tezero (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I said that a 1917 newspaper isn't a 2014 website. Are you disputing the fact? And if not, can you explain why an article on a 1917 newspaper should dedicate half its content to a 2014 website - another subject? Or are you suggesting that the article isn't about the newspaper, or about the website? What is it about then? 'Things from Pichilemu called El Marino'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not all or nothing. I never advocated as much space being spent on the website as there is, but that doesn't mean it has no place whatsoever. Your refusal to understand what I meant by my analogy with Ramirez suggests to me that you'd prefer nitpicking to actually evaluating the content. That being said, this is all theoretical, because Diego has not yet provided the supposed sources linking the website to the 1917 paper. As such, I've long overstayed my welcome in increasingly tangential arguments, so I'll be unwatching this. I can return if needed when Diego provides the documents or comes up dry for whatever reason. Tezero (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your valuable input, Tezero. I will notify you when I get those documents online. Regards, --Diego Grez (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not all or nothing. I never advocated as much space being spent on the website as there is, but that doesn't mean it has no place whatsoever. Your refusal to understand what I meant by my analogy with Ramirez suggests to me that you'd prefer nitpicking to actually evaluating the content. That being said, this is all theoretical, because Diego has not yet provided the supposed sources linking the website to the 1917 paper. As such, I've long overstayed my welcome in increasingly tangential arguments, so I'll be unwatching this. I can return if needed when Diego provides the documents or comes up dry for whatever reason. Tezero (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I said that a 1917 newspaper isn't a 2014 website. Are you disputing the fact? And if not, can you explain why an article on a 1917 newspaper should dedicate half its content to a 2014 website - another subject? Or are you suggesting that the article isn't about the newspaper, or about the website? What is it about then? 'Things from Pichilemu called El Marino'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Because you just said that a 1917 newspaper isn't a 2014 website. I'm explaining why, assuming that sources can be found to attribute the connection as has happened with Ramirez (which, of course, has not happened yet, but you asserted that this was a separate argument), that isn't a very good argument for the website's exclusion. Tezero (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody is disputing that the editor of the newspaper is connected to the newspaper he edited. Why is that supposed to be relevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, but it would. A 1917 newspaper isn't Ramirez, either, yet there he is on the page, uncontested. Why? He has a demonstrated relationship to the 1917 paper such that an article on the paper would be incomplete without him. Tezero (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- That wouldn't alter the fact that a 1917 newspaper isn't a 2014 website. Two different subjects, two different articles... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Now we're getting somewhere. It should be sufficient to cite some public record of Ramirez's descendants' approval to attest a connection between the old and new versions of El Marino. Tezero (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Talking to a wall. TheGrump put in doubt the people involved in the official documents referenced, actually existed. Ms. Núñez and Mr. Buzeta obviously exist. Diego Grez (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop repeating yourself. We already know that you have registered the name, and that you are claiming that it is a continuation of the newspaper. You have still failed to provide any third-party source which provides any evidence for significant historical continuity between a newspaper published in 1917 and the website. If you really insist that these registration documents are evidence for meaningful historical continuity, take it to WP:RSN, and ask for outside input (I take it as read that you will explain your conflict of interest when doing so). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Registration is (beside that it is a legally mandatory) also made for copyright purposes, I am required to deposit copies of the material generated by El Marino, in this case, on the National Library. Two major laws rule newspapers and other publications, the Law of Intellectual Property, and the Law of Press (No. 19,733); these are publicly available on leychile.cl, and there's an article on the intellectual property law here on Wikipedia, which summarizes it perfectly well. Articles of the 1917 newspaper are public domain, however, permission was needed from Ramírez's succession to make a "continuation" of the newspaper. As I have repeatedly stated, those documents were provided to the province government, which in turn gave them to the National Library. We could assume they inspected upon those documents, and for them to state it was "the continuation of the 1917 newspaper", they should have reached the conclusion the documents were valid. Diego Grez (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fail- This article does not meet criteria 5 of the GA criteria. It is not stable day to day with this ongoing edit war related to the COI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- (Added to the fact that you have failed to properly fail -oh, the redundancy- this review) I disagree with this closure, given that there have been no ongoing edit wars for several days, and given the result of the discussion at ANI, it is unlikely there will be more. Diego Grez (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't failing it but pointing out that it already had failed. I'm not the reviewer.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Note. I have removed the improper hatting of this thread by article creator Diego Grez. Nothing in the ANI thread resolved the content issue here - that an article supposedly on a 1917 newspaper instead devoted much of its content to a 2014 website with no meaningful historical connection. Even without the COI concerns, I can see no legitimate reason to assume that such coatracking is compliant with encyclopaedic standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sfs90, you are the reviewer here, so the final decision is yours: it's up to you to continue the review or close it. As Diego Grez has retired, and as what's left is an article with only an Intro plus a Background section that's half about the editor's history and half about the paper's two-month run, this probably won't qualify, but it's up to you to determine that. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fail- As -Serialjoepsycho- said, this article doesn't meet criteria 5 of the GA criteria. Even when the edit war ceased when Diego Grez retired from Wikipedia, there's an IP address that still make some editings on that article (as in other Pichilemu-related articles), which it seems to be Diego Grez, and by that editions, it's still an unstable article. Also, with the information of only a minor newspaper, with no relevance at all in their country (Chile) or the city of Pichilemu, it couldn't be a good article. Finally, it doesn't meet criteria 3 (stays focused on topic) because in the first 3 paragraphs of the "Background" it goes into unnecesary details about the founder of the newspaper and the history of the other Pichilemu-based newspapers, that had loose relation with "El Marino". --Sfs90 (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)