Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 | This is the talk page for the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Issues on individual biographies of living persons should go to the noticeboard, not to this talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the noticeboard itself. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Click here to post a question to the Biographies of living persons noticeboardDenying recognition to domestic terrorists
I asked this at the teahouse too. In the field of crime prevention one strategy for reducing mass shootings and similar domestic terror incidents is to deny recognition to the perp by suppressing their name in reporting. And while we're NOTNEWS, I was wondering if we have any discrete policies for not naming these people or carrying biographies about them, or doing biographies without naming them such as Shooter in the 2022 "location" mass shooting Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seems odd to remove a fact of historical note, like the identity of someone who committed a crime notable enough to have an article. I understand the reasoning behind denying recognition, but that doesn't work with a reference work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Its the same reasoning for leaving out the ingredients of each kind of Improvised explosive device, even though our reference work does list several varieties. But it also comes at a penalty for those doing lawful research. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
PS I got what I needed... I'm just not going to work on these so thanks for input. Others can keep talking if you want, but I'm leaving. Happy editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Should REVDEL be mentioned as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING?
Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion regarding WP:DEADNAMING and WP:REVDEL at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Allow this page Draft:Govind Dholakia
Namaste I felt little weird about why everyone wants to just delete a draft article. Just because earlier people wrote something on him which is blatant marketing but they were different. i am different. Refer Savji Dholakia , Pankaj Patel , Jamnalal Bajaj They too writing about personal & family details & other things around business. What they have achieved and received awards. Please refer the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Govind_Dholakia there is no more details than name, family details and we are not even citing what sort of honors which he have received simple one award which he have received which too mentioned to show his identity recognized individuals & news papers within Wikipedia Guideline.
please requesting you to read it once again. Go through it with references with utmost truth without any biasness. Please allow this article and title to go further. feel free to connect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brakshit23 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Section: National Council of La Raza
"... By 1972, the organization had changed its name to the National Council for La Raza[2] and moved its offices to Washington, D.C. In 1997, the Ford Foundation, the NCLR's sole funding source, demanded a change in the organization's focus and direction by threatening to withhold funding and forced its president, Henry Santiestevan, out of office.
In 1974, Yzaguirre was elected the second president of the NCLR. The Ford Foundation was pleased with Yzaguirre and continued to be a top donor of the NCLR throughout his term...."
The 1997 date does not fit in this timeline. It should probably be 1973 or 1974. Idk enough to fix it myself, just to recognize that it's wrong. Vrede420 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
This BLP article is currently being considered for deletion. I though it might be of interest to people who follow this page. CT55555 (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see any material updates to this story since the article was created, but now we're seeing the inevitable consequence of creating the article. Seeing as there appears to be a consensus for it, I suggest the article be swiftly nuked. soibangla (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well it won’t be “swiftly nuked” because of the WP:RAPID you did by starting an AfD before a PROD/Speedy deletion, so at least until the 7 days are up and the AfD concludes, the article will for sure be in mainspace since there is too much controversy for any WP:SNOW closures. After that, it is up to what the AfD concludes. Technically, you caused the article to be up longer that it should be in my opinion. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not certain, but I think PROD is only for situation where we don't think deletion would be contested. That seems therefore not applicable here. Although I would like to see this deleted as soon as possible due to BLP issues. CT55555 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is a rather asinine accusation, to be honest. Even the most routine of Prods gets contested and removed, this article has a fan club already and it would've been an easy de-prod. There was also no valid criteria for a speedy deletion. ValarianB (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree, which is why after I saw the WP:RAPID nomination, I dropped a fully neutral message about it on Soibangla‘s talk page. I haven’t interacted in the AfD besides the two message about WP:RAPID (stating it & the 24 hour pings I promised) and a copy/paste message of what I sent above as a reply to Soibangla‘s copy/paste message in the AfD. IMO, the article needs to be deleted, but no matter what, Soibangla’s nomination message stated it was a nonsense article, so a PROD should have been done OR a G3 speedy deletion. At the time of AfD nomination, a G3 could have passed. Well, I’m done with this topic and AfD since I foresee it being deleted, but in the end, I stand by my point that the WP:RAPID AfD could have gone differently with at least a G3 speedy deletion and removed the article quicker. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Disagreeing or not is irrelevant, you're simply wrong. The Prod system is for non-controversial deletions, this would not have passed that. Anyone can remove a tag for any reason, or for no reason. ValarianB (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree, which is why after I saw the WP:RAPID nomination, I dropped a fully neutral message about it on Soibangla‘s talk page. I haven’t interacted in the AfD besides the two message about WP:RAPID (stating it & the 24 hour pings I promised) and a copy/paste message of what I sent above as a reply to Soibangla‘s copy/paste message in the AfD. IMO, the article needs to be deleted, but no matter what, Soibangla’s nomination message stated it was a nonsense article, so a PROD should have been done OR a G3 speedy deletion. At the time of AfD nomination, a G3 could have passed. Well, I’m done with this topic and AfD since I foresee it being deleted, but in the end, I stand by my point that the WP:RAPID AfD could have gone differently with at least a G3 speedy deletion and removed the article quicker. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well it won’t be “swiftly nuked” because of the WP:RAPID you did by starting an AfD before a PROD/Speedy deletion, so at least until the 7 days are up and the AfD concludes, the article will for sure be in mainspace since there is too much controversy for any WP:SNOW closures. After that, it is up to what the AfD concludes. Technically, you caused the article to be up longer that it should be in my opinion. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Rajasekharan Parameswaran
In 2022, he was honoured with KALAI NANMANI award from Govt. of Tamilnadu, through the Districtor Collector, Nagercoil. Rajasekharan Parameswaran (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)