Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Marine Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

As the "victim" is the United States Navy and several high ranking officers have had their carriers sidetracked by this, it's clearly really notable. What other article covers the same ground? Hcobb (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Prod, as i believe it does meet GNG beyond the bribery coverage. This article is from January 2012, and there are probably others. Henry, you'll need to do some work though to expand the article beyond what's there now. I don't have much experience with this type of subject, so I can't do much myself. It definitely need a better Lead, as quoting the company website verbatim won't cut it. - BilCat (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for help at the Ships and Transport Project talk pages, so we'll see if any assistance is forth coming. I ask that the nom please hold off on taking the article to AFD for a few days, as the material there is reliably sourced, to give others time to rescue the article. Thanks - BilCat (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If no improvements in sourcing the article are made by Tuesday US time (Monday is a US holiday, so perhaps improvements will come then), then I will have no objection to this article going to AFD, and would probably support the deletion if the article remains in its current shoddy state. - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying Branch/Loveless

[edit]

Looking at these two edits ([1], [2]);

MilborneOne is suggesting that Branch/Loveless ought not be identified by name per WP:BLPCRIME - "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured"

I feel fairly neutral on this point, but I think I'd lean to include as both these guys are high ranking public officials (I know that's not in the policy but hey, we all make up our own little rules some time). I'd be a little stronger for including for Branch as the "relatively unknown" would seem a less apt label for him. He's notable enough for his own article after all. Thoughts? NickCT (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an after thought; if we're really trying to strictly apply WP:BLPCRIME we ought to consider whether we should name Francis as well. NickCT (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not related to WP:BLPCRIME but to the fact they were only under investigation and had not been charged or even arrested, also they are at this point really nothing to do with the company and this is about the company not an article about the alleged wrongdoing. Francis is part of the company and as far as I know has been arrested. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne - re "It was not related to WP:BLPCRIME " - So what policy are you acting on? Can you point to the specific policy/wording that you feel applies here?
"not an article about the alleged wrongdoing" - Can you point to the article about the alleged wrongdoing? If not, then isn't this the most relevant place for the info? NickCT (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I dont need to use alphabet soup polices to use common sense and general sensitivity about living people. Just because we dont have an article (and you are welcome to create an article on the navy investigation) doesnt mean this is a dumping ground for it - at the most it would not need more than a few words on an article about the company. Certainly at this stage a Navy investigation about navy officers is not relevant particularly as they have not been charged or arrested for anything. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne - You don't need policy huh? What if I do?
Don't you think WP:BLPCRIME is at least a little relevant here?
I'm not sure this event warrants its own article yet. Frankly, a separate article will look a little weird, b/c at this point the scandal seems more notable than the actual company (i.e. an article about the scandal would probably be longer than an article about the company). NickCT (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes it is clear BLPCRIME does support my position of not including innocent people. Crime article are not my bag I would leave it to other to make decision about an article, but certainly WEIGHT considerations means it probably only needs the short menetion and it already overwhelms the article as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne - Not including "relatively unknown" innocent people. Sigh..... ah well. I don't think we're going to find consensus here. Would be nice if others were to chime in.
I think if the scandal grows at all we'd probably want to spin the section off into its own article. Probably right to leave it for now. NickCT (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glenn Marine Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Glenn Marine Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Marine_Group&oldid=1202275054"