Talk:Guatemalan news reporter killed by Pacaya volcano

Regarding infobox query

Contacted Diego Grez regarding infobox choices. I am not sure if the reporter is notable enough in the news, and has enough info for an obituary. Possibly the article should have the {{Guatemala}} infobox instead, and then all/both the Pacaya volcano stories would be also together. Kind RegardsSriMesh | talk 18:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. {{Guatemala}} is better since the person isn't really that notable, probably not enough for an obit template. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger?

As the reporter's death is also noted on the other volcano story - Pacaya volcano erupts; "state of public calamity" decreed - possibly the two articles should be merged.SriMesh | talk 18:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I did write the other article as well, and I thought his death was notable enough for another article, receiving coverage from international news sources. Maybe he wasn't that 'notable', but the death is somewhat tragic. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed tragic, I agree, and to also be looking for others who are missing is also scary. Thanks for your note. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 19:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think his death is very important. Do any of the world-wide news agencies (BBC, AFP, AP, Reuters etc.) cover it specifically? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lolol. There are some sources, like los Angeles Times. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that, but that source doesn't specifically cover the reporter's death. It covers the volcano and mentions the death (like our article does). Griffinofwales (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Griffinofwales, it sucks he died, but it doesn't really matter in the overall coverage of the event. C628 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Are all those sources really necessary??? This is going to be very offputting to any possible reviewers. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well... if you want... Done --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you take out too many? I couldn't verify this: "His body was found with several hits from lava and gravel on his body. Archilla was laying in a fetal position, still holding his video camera. 60 lifeguards were involved in the search." Benny the mascot (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This too: "Archila, who was 32, had worked for 12 years as a journalist."

Maybe because SriMesh removed some of the sources. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...which ones are still needed in this story? Benny the mascot (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One of them is [1], who is a blog, but it seems reliable enough to me, and for the age, it is on the Noticias de Guatemala source. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1031835 [Passed]

Revision 1031835 of this article has been reviewed by Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: After hours of editing, it is finally good to go!!!! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1031835 of this article has been reviewed by Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: After hours of editing, it is finally good to go!!!! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Review of revision 1031839 [Passed]

Revision 1031839 of this article has been reviewed by Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: edit conflict The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1031839 of this article has been reviewed by Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: edit conflict The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

lol. don't blame me ;) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The review failed AGAIN because you changed the templates at the same time. :(( Nevermind, I've done everything manually... :) Benny the mascot (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That means... easy peer review sucks at edit conflicts xD --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why it isn't "news"?

Let's talk about the article. Come on. Don't do idiocies like Wales - not Jimbo - did. I'm not too idiot to think about writing two articles about the same subject; this article is notable enough, maybe the person isn't, but the story is. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Better, "what do you call news?" and how can an user override the reviewer of the article? It is supposed that if he did, it is okay; but someone thinks he can override everything. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I point out that the story has already been published. This is an unnecessary add-on. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So you can't do anything, then, end of the story. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the volcano article, not this obituary. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As an admittedly involved editor, I'll say it's because the person who died really isn't that notable. I mean, it sucks and all, but does it really matter? People die all the time, we don't right about it all the time. There's really nothing here that couldn't get merged into the older article, or used in a hypothetical new article about the event in general, not just one aspect of it. I would say it's roughly analogous to having an article about, say, a train crash, and then having a story about one particular person who died—the event is what's notable, not the individual death. C628 (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You also put the obit cat on the page, which implies it is an obit. If it is an obit, this guy isn't notable enough to have an obit. If it isn't, it's covered by the previous article. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see both sides' points here. The bigger event is of course newsworthy, but at the same time so the smaller, mini-event within it (the reporter's death) would be too, in its own right (IMHO). I don't think it's too specific, it can really go either way here. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And none of the big news agencies covered it... Griffinofwales (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So if CNN reports you went to the bathroom, it is news. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

CNN reporting it probably makes it newsworthy. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that none of the sources come from big news agencies (NYtimes, BBC, Reuters etc.), and only two are in English, both of which I don't recognise. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to the above comments, I'd just like to note that just because the MSM covers a certain event, it doesn't necessarily mean it must be newsworthy/relevant enough for our standards (a good example of this is when someone wrote an article about Gordon Brown revealing his favourite type of cookie. BBC and CNN picked up on it, but it's not relevant.) Conversely, just because the mainstream doesn't pick up on a certain story, doesn't necessarily mean that it *isn't* good enough for us. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tempo. Additionally, Guatemalan and other South American news agencies reported a lot on this event, the death of the reporter. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I spent some time in South America, and from my experience with news, all they cover is celebrity junk and stuff like this that makes you cry. They do it for the ratings (IMO). Griffinofwales (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but this story in particular hardly qualifies as "celebrity sensationalism". I'm still of a split mind on this - on one hand, the article is a sort of sub-topic of the main story, but at the same time, if we merged the two, wouldn't that be digressing a bit (considering that the "main" article focusses more on the general state of things, not the specifics? Am i making sense?) Tempodivalse [talk] 22:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is about the specifics, then focus on the specifics, and not the reporter's death. The reporter's death won't affect the response to the disaster, or the casualty count. Just another person dying. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. It's the only person killed by the volcano at the moment, and it is a news reporter. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but it's a good measure, and since when is an obit for someone without an enWP article (good measure of notability) ok? Instead of this, why doesn't someone just replace this article with a new up-to-date article about the volcano? Griffinofwales (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

La Cruz Hill hasn't a enWP article, and that makes it non notable. Weird. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Obits! Not articles... Griffinofwales (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's my view bear in mind i'm an inclusionist):

• More articles the better than fewer articles. Well complete duplicates are bad, the two articles are not duplicates imho. Of the 5 w's, this one shares the When, where and the why with the other story. It has a different What, and Who. In my mind that makes them, well closely related, still worthy of having two separate articles
• As far as merging with older articles. Well i'm not sure how older the other one is, but I thought the general practise was to create new articles when new details emerge. Volcano erupts - have an article about that. new development - someone dies, have an article about that. But if the other article is relativly new, merging them might be a possibility.
• as far as obit goes. I don't think this article is news worthy due to the fame of the person who died. Its newsworthy because the person died in the line of duty (which is sometimes interesting), and because the volcano is somewhat famous.
• Sereis of related articles are cool (imho).

However with that said, I can see the point of view that this is very closely related to the other article, and only a mildy notable event, but I lean towards the view that this is publishable article, and the more articles the merrier. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Blog source

I have removed the blog source from the article again. It has been removed 3 times now. Diego Grez has restored it twice. This is not a reliable source. It is someone reporting on things he heard on the news and offering his feelings on what he heard on the news. The only thing it seems to provide to the article is the following sentences: "Archilla was lying in a fetal position, still holding his video camera. Sixty rescuers were involved in the search." I do not think the fetal position, clutching the camera aspect is needed for the article. It just adds sensationalism really.

I feel it is best that this article and its content is left out as it is unreliable as a blog. Either way (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Either we should find a real source claiming this, or otherwise don't have it at all. Blogs are inherently unreliable. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S., can someone sight my removal of it? Thanks! Either way (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Done No hard feelings =) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)