Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Achromatic (talk | contribs) at 19:50, 26 October 2009 (→‎Default to delete for BLPs: way too early?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Archive
Archives

2008
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
2009
34, 35

Is it okay for a nominator of an AFD to !vote and nominate?

I recently challenged a AFD nominator because they had expressed their opinion in the nomination itself and during the discussion added a !vote for deletion with a slightly different argument. Is there part of the policy that covers this behaviour so I can formally clarify if it is okay or not?—Ash (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why any person cannot continue to argue for whichever outcome they like. It is generally improper to place multiple "!votes", though, and if a person makes multiple bolded "keep" or "delete" (or other) comments, you may strike ones after the first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the nomination itself doesn't count as a "!vote"?—Ash (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination is like any other opinion, it should be "counted" once only and given a weight based on the quality of the arguments as they relate to relevant policy. Chillum 20:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding is that the summary required in a deletion template is exactly that: a summary, ie a concise description of why the nomination has been put forth. The person making the nomination is allowed to expand and justify that nomination, and the proper place for this expansion is in the body of the discussion, not in the summary. Also, it is my understanding that discussion pages are set up to discuss the issue and reach a consensus, not to hold an election and get a majority ruling. Limiting any editor to a single comment is not a discussion, and prohibiting the person putting forth the nomination from making any contribution other than the nomination itself would be censorship. TechBear (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Some people do it because they aren't aware of the unspoken convention that the nomination represents a 'vote' unless explicitly stated otherwise. I don't think formal clarification is necessary. There are too many provisos and what not in this policy anyway, to say nothing of deletion process, AfD, AADD, and so forth. The only time someone needs to step in and say something is if an editor is 'voting' in a fashion that might confuse the closing admin (multiple bolded votes, repeated statement of the nomination text, etc.). Protonk (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of multiple categories, including one or more stub categories

Please express your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Renaming of multiple categories, including one or more stub categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

MilbornOne posted an opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability#Comment that articles should not be PRODded or nominated at AfD within 48 hours of creation. He was talking specifically about new articles on aircraft accidents. I see no reason why this should not extend to all articles. I fully agree that this would be a good idea. It gives those editors who do not follow the practice of creating articles in a sandbox the time to work on the article. An editor who finds a new article with problems can always raise the issue politely on the talk page of the creator. This proposal would not prevent an article being listed at CSD or prevent articles from being speedied where that is appropriate.

Therefore I'd like to ask what the consensus is for this proposal:-

{{PROD}} and {{AfD}} may not be placed on an article within 48 hours of the creation of the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The processes for saying 'hangon' or discussing at length in an AFD are pretty straightforward. If someone raises, for example, an obvious content fork then discussing this in an AFD shortly after creation seems entirely appropriate. The creator has plenty of time to discuss the matter and always has the option of using the {{construction}} in order to encourage discussion on the article talk page.—Ash (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are plenty of new pages that don't fit in the CSD categories, but where some searching shows that they don't fit in Wikipedia either. If these can't be prod'ded or AfD'ed in the first 48 hours, yo uare making the work of the new page patrollers much harder, since you need to separate CSD patrol (immediate, for attacks and so on) from prod/afD patrol (looking only at pages that are at least two days old). Now, a New Page Patroller can do both (and much more) at the same time. Some of these may be considered speedyable or otherwise solvable, but why would we not prod things like Leeds/draft, Compiling environment, Desk sockets (already prodded), Victor Antonio Torres (speedy A7?), On the Ball (TV show), ... Fram (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in addition to the comments above, this would probably make it harder for the creator to contest the deletion. If the creator writes the article they might not log back in for weeks or months, so if the prod tag is placed 48 hours after creation they'll never see it. On the other hand if the tag is placed not long after the article is created they are much more likely to be around and to contest the deletion. Hut 8.5 11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Fram said, there are plenty of articles that have no place in the encyclopedia that aren't speediable. If you eliminate prod as an option for pages that clearly have no encyclopedic potential, people will tag them with IAR speedies, either making CSD an insane asylum or wasting lots of gnome time while people remove the CSD tags, put it on a list to be prodded in two days, then prod the thing. If editors are tagging articles for deletion without following WP:BEFORE, call them out on it. They'll either start following WP:BEFORE or get so sick of the "you have new messages" bar that they won't prod at all. (This goes for CSD, prod and AfD.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great idea which if adopted will make the encylopedia more welcoming to new users, and encourage creativity. If an article doesnt qualify for CSD, it can wait two extra days before entering the non urgent deletion streams. Come on deletionists, you know they taste better if you give them a chance to grow! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow I'm not anxious to encourage creativity like "Foofraz is a great drinking game that's been played in my dorm for the last three years." There's no speedy category for this, and when my gsearch turns up 6 blog hits and nothing else, you want me to wait two more days before starting the prod/afd cycle, which will still take a minimum of 7 more days? How on earth is two more days going to make this into an encyclopedic article? And if it would, why not just make prod 9 days (remembering that not so long ago we added two days to prod and AfD ). --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I have proposed this before, (here) with...err...resounding opposition in response. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • String support - if thwe article isn't covered by speedy deletion, give it a chance before requesting to have it deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said last year when Protonk proposed it, oppose for PROD, as PROD is (ideally) for uncontroversial deletions as is, and it seems pointless to add an extra two days to it. Meh for AfD, as the likelihood that adding two more days to the process is going to result in much improvement to the article that wouldn't already happen in a week is low. So, I kinda' oppose it to avoid being WP:CREEPy, but there isn't much other reason for me to oppose. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, it was almost exactly a year ago, eh? I didn't even notice that. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the original suggestion I made was related to aviation accidents when a high number of edits can be made related to a news event. These tend to be AfD or Prodded quickly before they have a chance to establish notability. This can end up with long discussions at AfD about not news etc while a wait of a few days could establish notability when events had settled. I understand the comments about enough time in the AfD process for the article to establish notability but these AfDs can attract a large number of opinions because of the current event interest. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • support in principle but there need to be exceptions, for there are articles that do not fit into speedy policy but are appropriate for snow deletes after a few opinions have been collected. And , like Fram and Papyrus and Lifebaka said, I don't really see a great problem with prod, for they will always be around for 7 days in any case, and anyone can remove the prod when they disagree with it. But as for AfD, the main problem is the one Hut raised, of notifying the creator. We could add a layer of notices to handle it, such as my "I advise you to fix this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process, " but we don't want to complicate things too far. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a new article that is unsuitable for the encyclopedia (but not speedyable) needs to be dealt with as soon as possible, not allowed to be swept away by the stream and forgotten about. --Stormie (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 48 hours is much too long to wait. Especially considering a prod already gives it 7 days anyway. I tend to adhere to an Immediatist philosophy, where "any detracting quality (such as being ill-formatted or containing less than satisfactory material) should be remedied as soon as possible" and that a newly-created article should be as complete as possible BEFORE putting it in the mainspace.. because I care about Wikipedia's image, and when I picture a troll bragging to his buddies that his joke article is "STILL up after TWO days man! Lulz!" I can see how it would detract from the professional image of Wikipedia's administrators, about whom it may be said that they're not doing their job properly by deleting that crap ASAP, but also the professionalism of Wikipedia as a whole. -- œ™ 05:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Any required improvement can still happen during the AfD/PROD period, and is indeed often more likely to be triggered by an appropriate deletion request.  Sandstein  05:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Among other reasons, an article being a WP:HOAX is not a reason for speedy deletion, unless it's also WP:NONSENSE, but there is no reason to delay the removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant hoaxes can be speedily deleted. Fences&Windows 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whatever we do has to take the work force and work flows into account. Even if it's a good idea in principle, if the effect is that the taggers don't take any action two days later, then it won't work. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are overzealous deletionists at NPP and AfD, but we shouldn't snarl up the deletion process with this proposal because of them. A prod can be removed by anyone for any reason (other than serial pointy or disruptive removals), so there is no good reason to delay it. All editors should follow WP:BEFORE, but is making someone intent on deleting an article wait two days likely to make them any more diligent in this? I doubt it. A greater problem with deletion is speedily deleting works in progress without giving the editor any real notice or chance to improve the article. Fences&Windows 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Many, many new articles clearly qualify for deletion by prod or AFD. There is absolutely no reason to need to be forced to wait two days to tag non-notable, etc. articles that aren't CSD. Both prod and AFD still allow for seven days to object or improve. A forced delay will only allow unnecessary articles to stay on WP longer or forever. Reywas92Talk 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hard limits do not work well when discretion is needed. Some articles need to be dealt with right away. While this may be discouraging to new users, the encyclopedia and the quality of its content is our first priority. By the time an article is 48 hours old the amount of attention it is getting has drastically reduced, it has a chance of being forgotten and just sitting there forever. Chillum 21:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, complete nonsenses. As others have already noted, if the article clearly qualifies for deletion, but not speedy deletion, then no reason at all to force a 2 day wait. There are many hoax and other inappropriate articles that can NOT be speedied (by nature of the "blatant" part), and should be tagged immediately. Both Afd and Prod allow sufficient time to show any notability of the article is tagged for that reason. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if for nothing else but that it's unworkable. People don't operate on a two-days-later schedule. It will result in far fewer articles that should receive a prod or AfD, not getting them.--162.84.136.254 (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—as other editors here have noted, there are many articles which should clear be deleted but aren't eligible for CSD. A good example is many band articles tagged for A7 but don't satisfy A7 because they released a studio album and have additional assertions of notability. Many administrators still cheat the process by deleting these articles, but their number would reach somewhere around 100% if this proposal was implemented. No one wants to try to help out at CSD and then realize they need to do more work just for a number of bad articles that should be deleted anyway. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I see no reason to exempt new articles from our policies. This also includes the pseudopolicy that surmountable problems are best fixed by editing. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose MilborneOne's argument is valid and I understand his point. Perhaps we could make an exception for current events of this kind. Otherwise I think any editor can improve the article with {{PROD}} or {{AfD}} template. The templates aren't "biting", they inform about the rules of our project and other people's opinions in a standard way. This is an encyclopedia, not a kindergarten. No need to complicate things, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly the consensus is not in favour of the proposal. My thanks to all who commented on the proposal. Maybe a bit more discretion would be a better way of avoiding PRODs and AfDs on recent-event related articles. IMHO, all editors should be enouraged to make use of a personal sandbox to perfect articles before releasing them into mainspace, rather than creating unfinished articles and then working on them when they are "live".Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. That's perverse. NPPs shouldn't be deleting articles with potential. This is a wiki, people should be creating articles like this or this without having to go through some strange migration process. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, what's perverse is linking to examples of new articles from 2001 and 2005. The more Wikipedia grows, the more obscure the topic of the average new article - and hence the more necessary that a new article reaches certain minimum standards of sourcing and content which enables others to understand and expand it. Over time that makes it more and more advantageous to do a draft "paddling pool" stage first, before being thrown into the deep end of the swimming pool. Rd232 talk 07:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not really a feature of growth and the relative obscurity of uncreated and newly created articles doesn't play a big role. Much more powerful is the notion that wikipedia has "grown up" and will be a proper place for articles rather than a freewheeling environment for editing and collaboration. Protonk (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well that's your view, I disagree. Rd232 talk 10:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your first one makes a clear assertion of notability and wouldn't be deleted anyway. And the second probably should have been a section in Byzantine Empire (which at the time looked like this) rather than a standalone article, until it had some more content. Neither really demonstrate a problem with the current system which would be helped by this proposal. --Stormie (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say that they would. My point is that we are moving toward a set of expectations for articles that they should more like DYK material than 1-2 sentence unwikified stubs before they are created. And that in doing so we are placing an implicit barrier to entry. The point was raised in response to mjroot's reasoning for withdrawing the procedure, not in support of it. I proposed an almost identical policy last year, but I'm less sure of the merits today, hence why I didn't offer a support or opposing view. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Mjroots was wrong in his proposal and wrong in his withdrawal rationale. My experience with this article convinced me that prodding articles quickly is necessary if the New Page Patrollers are ever going to make any headway, and at the same time it pushes the article creators to improve their article quickly, rather than allow it to lay around as a two-sentence stub for months. But I also disagree with those who argue that everyone should create articles in their sandbox before displaying them. With the same article mentioned above, I had contributors expanding it more quickly than I was able; those helping editors may well have been more inspired to contribute to a nearly blank canvass than they would have to a fully-fabricated article. Just my 2¢. Unschool 05:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Allowing people to work on an article before it gets deleted is a bad idea, as they will feel very disappointed. It is much better to delete it from the start, before there is too much emotional involvement. SyG (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the review section

Now that WP:REFUND is up and running, I think the Deletion review section of the policy needs revising to make it clear in which cases WP:DRV should be used instead. We need to clarify what sort of deletions can be overturned under what circumstances, how deletions can be challenged and when they need to be discussed with the deleting admin and/or in a forum open to community discussion. Speaking to administrators recently it seems best practices are unclear or ill-understood.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a description of the REFUND process in this edit, with some content taken from the Deletion review section. I wasn't sure if REFUND/undeletion should be its own subsection or part of the Deletion review subsection, so I went half-way and made it a subsection of Deletion review. Review, suggestions, comments welcome.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a starting point for people, I tried to start a discussion on scope of WP:REFUND and best practices at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_undeletion#Scope_and_best_practices, but not much discussion was generated. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting from the database

If there are some deleted User talk pages from years back that I want deleted from the database as well, what steps can I take to ask for those deleted user talk pages (which were deleted by Administrators in 2006 & 2007 and the decision to delete those talk pages was agreed upon, even by me) to be deleted from the database as well? 76.208.168.46 (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. I just read some of the WP:RFO and it looks to me that my user talk pages from years back meet the requirements. It's going to be awkward to make the request, but eventually I have to. 76.208.168.46 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Definitely misread that. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Default to delete for BLPs

Jake Wartenburg, rightly in my view, made this edit to codify what is becoming accepted practice... that a BLP that has no consensus defaults to delete, or at least that the admin has the option of so closing it. Chillum reverted it here. I've put it back, and am now here on the talk to discuss it. Policy is descriptive, for the most part, it describes what we do, and it sometimes lags practice. This is one of those cases. Also, please be informed by this edit of Jimbo Wales in which he is pretty strongly saying that marginals should go. Being kind is more important than having every marginal BLP that no dead tree encyclopedia would have. I invite support for this view. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This definitely has my strong support and, IMO, is way overdue. I strongly suspect Jimbo would concur - Alison ❤ 02:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a sensible change. It doesn't force any change on the community, rather it allows admins to use their discretion to a greater degree at the marginal edges of notability, where such discretion is most needed. Kevin (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin puts this quite well. This change is overdue in my opinion. Interestingly Cary Bass's BLP Task Force imagined an even greater scope of no consensus defaulting to delete at AfD, which is certainly something to think about. Perhaps this is how bad things have gotten for OTRS. NW (Talk) 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's set to be rewritten to be BLP-specific. Lara 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems reasonable to codify this practice. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The subtle wording change is a significant one and it has not been demonstrated that it was a descriptive one, as shown by the responses to the first deletion rationale relying on this policy revision. If an arguably notable individual requests deletion of their biography, I agree that we should strongly consider complying with their wishes. Otherwise, closing administrators should rely on consensus, with our standard of "no consensus" defaulting to retention. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose [edit confict] #1 this isn't actually a common practice that I know of. #2 There is a discussion (above) that addressed this before. #3 If you are going to try to make such a change, a wider discussion is in order (RfC). I'll certainly be including a proposal to remove the current (narrow) option to delete with no consensus in any such discussion. In any case, we should be defaulting to keep on all article IMO. We should only remove those things we find consensus to remove. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last discussion is at [1] Hobit (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not forget that consensus can change - Alison ❤ 03:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly it can. But I've seen no evidence other than one highly debatable AfD result that says it has. So far we've seen the same folks who seem to be pushing this BLP change everywhere else in the last week or so pushing it here. Serious question: are you all discussing these AfDs, DrVs and/or this policy change somewhere (on or off Wikipedia?). It feels very orchestrated. S Marshall asked the same question a while back in a DrV and got no response. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I've only just come out of retirement a few weeks back so am playing catch-up here. My past work as an oversighter has contributed to my belief that WP has a serious BLP issue, the question of marginal ones being only part of the problem. The simple fact is there just aren't enough eyes to ensure adequate policiing of alll BLPs and the fabled 'flagged revisions' has been dragging on for years, though it's enabled on other wikis. I'll believe it when I see it - Alison ❤ 04:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Part of it probably has a lot to do with User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO which I spammed to the talk page of WikiProject Living people and to several BLP editors and admins. It lists all biographical AFDs, so allows for easier focus for those who work in BLP. As far as the "default to delete", that's been pushed for quite a few months now, but really gained traction a few weeks ago. It's not that knew, it's just been mentioned more in the past week or so, mostly by Lar and myself, I think, and probably several members of the BLP project. It's also discussed on WR quite a bit, along with some AFDs and DRVs. Lara 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let me ask again. Is there any discussion on-going, on or off wikipedia, on the topic of BLPs, by any of you that are !voting to support this proposal? If so, could you please provide a link to those disussions (on WR or elsewhere)? That a group of people, all !voting the same way, to a DrV, a WP:DEL discussion, as well as a number of AfDs (the AFDBIO page would explain the AfDs, though I'm not sure how people found it) makes me wonder what prompted them to all appear at the same time. Hobit (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • here and here are the ones I've noticed. So that there is no misunderstanding: I do not participate (post) on WR, ever. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very reasonable and current description of what we do. I support. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless there is a current(ie not potential) BLP issue that cannot be remedied through regular editing, or the subject of the article is objecting then there is no BLP reason to default to delete. If there are real issues sure, but BLP should not be used to delete when BLP is not at issue. This distinction needs to be clear. All too often the BLP exceptions are used when BLP is not the motive. Chillum 03:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You've got to be kidding me. The closing admin for the David Shankbone AfD comes over here and makes this change, then becomes the closing admin at that AfD and uses it to close (even though the poor closing statement simply calls that AfD a "delete", ignoring the fact that more raw votes were for "Keep"). This just reeks of misuse of the ability to edit the encyclopedia. Even if the change were a good idea, initiating the change by this particular editor at this particular time basically looks like twisting the entire encyclopedia to get one outcome in one case, regardless of what dozens of editors made the effort to try to decide in a good, civil discussion. Don't we need to show respect for these editors? Perhaps the change should be made later, but not now. Wikipedia should try to avoid becoming a farce. And this kind of effort at policy change at this time makes it very hard to assume good faith on the part of the proponents. Don't you see what you look like? JohnWBarber (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, when did "default to delete" in any situation gain consensus? The last discussion I remember on the subject in May it was shot down. Did I miss a changing of consensus, or was it just inserted one day? Chillum 03:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. It didn't. But the change was made on the page for this policy anyway before it was edited back out, which is why we're discussing it now. If there's some kind of typical practice of defaulting to delete in AfDs for marginal BLPs, then let's have the diffs and let's watch that position gain consensus here. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think Wikipedia has too many marginally notable BLP articles, and any way to reduce them is beneficial. Unless there is a clear consensus to keep, these marginal articles should go. Otherwise, we reduce the overall quality of the Encyclopedia by becoming a phone book or a vanity site. Also, BLPs are extremely hard to guard against vandalism and malicious edits, and articles about marginally notable individuals strain our ability to keep junk and potential libel out. Crum375 (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I strongly agree with Lar's suggestion, so long as it says that "no consensus" closes of BLP AfDs may default to delete, rather than requiring that this be so. That is, when an admin closes a BLP AfD as no consensus, they have the option to either "default to keep" or "default to delete." Making it purely the latter (or the former, as has been the case in the past) is too much of a straight jacket, and I think what's needed here is more admin discretion when it comes to marginally notable BLPs that likely could be (or already have been) highly problematic. At the least I'd like to try this for awhile and see if it works/helps, and if it creates huge problems (which is possible, though I won't spill the beans and say how) we can change the practice again. Just in terms of how to run this discussion, I would suggest that it be listed at the centralized discussions page or wherever else necessary to get broad community feedback, and I would also suggest that folks try to think about this in general terms and without respect to the recent David Shankbone AfD. This discussion stems from that, but is by no means intrinsically tied to it, and we should try to think about this proposal in terms of the broader BLP problem of which we are all aware (and about which we have done next to nothing) rather than in the context of a recent (and heated) community debate about a specific article. The discussion here is vastly more important than the discussion there was, and one could have wanted to keep the Shankbone article (and hate the way the AfD was closed...the second time!) and still support this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was going to oppose per Chillum, but given that BLP is essentially a beefed-up version of every other important content policy, I can't really think of any situations where deletion would be considered, but BLP would not in any way be an issue. Mr.Z-man 04:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are already plenty (too many?) tools to deal with BLPs. The problem isn't with BLPs that are nominated for deletion, it is with BLPs that go unchecked and unwatched. Any editor has the mandate to ignore 3RR to remove BLP violations, and admins have virutally limitless permission to "shoot first, ask questions later" in any BLP dispute. Flipping the consensus to "default to delete" allows too much suppression of political dissent. I question whether Orly Taitz's or even Murder of Robert Eric Wone would have survived an AfD had such been the default deletion outcome. Fact is, BLP is used in a partisan manner. This proposal would embolden such partisan use, without any corresponding reduction of risk. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The partisan use of BLP is precisely my concern. Chillum 05:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that is very much a concern, and I think part of how you deal with that is by not making delete the automatic default for no consensus BLPs but rather an option the closing admin can take, thus admins would not be forced to delete in crazy-partisan AfDs that happened to end no consensus. Still, problems could remain, even among admins themselves who could close no consensus AfDs too aggressively as delete defaults because they have an agenda to rid the 'pedia of as many BLPs as possible (not commenting on that view one way or another, just saying it's obviously out there and pursuing it would be an abuse of deletion policy). For both Chillum and Jclemens or anyone thinking along your lines I have a question: would you be more likely to support this if we made this a "trial change", e.g. change the policy for a couple of months, keep a close eye on what happens, and then re-evaluate at the end and determine whether we really have consensus for it or not? I wonder if that isn't a more workable compromise, also being in the spirit of the flagged revisions proposal that eventually won consensus as a "trial". --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather, if it's to be a trial, that it be a set of administrators 1) deleting no-consensus BLPs under IAR, 2) Logging them centrally for tracking and discussion, and 3) Logging any resultant DRVs from such IAR closes. I'd favor that sort of a trial period as a way to see if consensus has indeed changed, and if abuses have been absent. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This isn't a new thing. I'll diff some of the AFDs in the next day or so. It's a bit late now, but this has been a change in tradition effective for some time now. There are a few commonsense things that would serve to significantly improve the BLP problem. This is one of them. To say "there are already plenty (too many?) tools to deal with BLPs" is beyond ridiculous. I don't even have a further reply to that. Lara 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This policy change will cause many headaches in the future if it is adopted. Anything that can be borderline considered borderline, after a hard fought discussion will simply go to delete because the closing administrator will, on his/her whim, decide so. There are too many problems with allowing this clause/loophole. We should come to a consensus that you can absolutely NOT default to delete on a no consensus of a borderline notable subject (who decides notability anyways? the community cannot have decided on this if a no consensus is the result, so therefore you cannot determine from a no consensus vote that there was consensus that he is marginally notable). You see how FUBARed this is? A lengthy discussion on whether or not a subject is notable, and the outcome of that can be reduced to whether or not the closing administrator thinks the subject is notable. How does that work? I'm also concerned that this discussion is only reaching the most ardent voters at the last AFD and may not be a proper, impartial consideration of this issue. Varks Spira (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the community at an AfD debate cannot decide if a subject is notable or not, i.e. "no consensus", then defaulting to keep is just as arbitrary a solution as defaulting to delete. As biographies of the living need to have particular care to be neutral, accurate, well sourced etc. this gives us a good reason to make this arbitrary decision on the side of deletion. Now this proposal is not saying that we must delete no consensus BLPs, even if many of us feel that should be the case, just that the closer will be allowed an extra degree of discretion. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no significant objection to tightening up our inclusion guidelines for BLPs. I do object to defaulting to deletion for NC discussions. If the goal is to have fewer BLPs of "debatable" notability, we should change WP:N, not WP:DEL. This change will result in three problems: #1 it will be easier for partisons to delete articles on people they don't like. #2 It will greatly increase the "random by admin" issues at AfD. #3 It solves no real problem: there will be fewer BLPs, but we'll get to the point that people just renom until they get a closer that deletes. Then it gets recreated and gets renomed until kept. Just too much room for the admin to enforce their own opinion. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way too early to discuss – let's wait until everyone cools down so we can discuss this whole thing civilly and rationally as opposed to arguing emotively. I'd recommend 1 month at the least. MuZemike 06:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • what if in a month there's some other controversial AfD? How long do we wait? Also, see here where SlimVirgin eloquently argued for this very change. She was right then and it's been how long since then? How much more harm is going to be done while we wait for "the right time"? No time like the present. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean is, the timing behind such a proposal is horribly bad, especially in the wake of one of our more contentious AFDs we've had in a while. Looking at the below commentary (as well as above, which sparked my recommendation), users here are overreacting as a result of the recent AFD; this has turned into a wiki-flamewar with all users involved here ready to tear each others' heads off in a virtual fashion (of course, I think some people here would rather do that). There's going to be an imminent review of the AFD in question, so we shouldn't be pushing this right now. Wait a while so that everyone has a chance to cool down, collect their thoughts, and are able to discuss this rationally and civilly. MuZemike 19:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • way too early? This debate and discussion has being going on for years. I can understand the desire to have cool rational discussion, but how long until the next BLP tempest? Perhaps that is indicative that something needs done (badly overdue, in my opinion) Achromatic (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I understand the rationale and I understand the scope of the BLP problem, but like automatically deleting unreferenced BLPs, this is another strongarm solution which doesn't even begin to focus on the crux of the matter. I'm not generally opposed to the notion of shifting our stance on 'consensus' in AfDs like this but I don't feel that a flick of a switch in the deletion policy is likely to do it. I can haz extremism? Protonk (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hard cases make bad law. Policy changes should not be made to contrive a result in a particular controversial case in which many of the participants seem to have a conflict of interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in the strongest possible terms, the BLP I signed up for is to prevent unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people from being introduced here, not to prevent well sourced information from being introduced. I never even conceived that this type of misuse would be tolerated. That monster is well out of control already, and clearly caused a horribly mistaken decision in the Shankbone case. Let's rein it in here before it goes any further. We should delete when there is strong consensus to do so (either explicitly through an XfD discussion showing clear consensus or implicitly through standing policies such as CSD). We should not delete at any other time or for any other reason. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- there are sufficient methods for dealing with problems in BLPs and this is serious overkill. And: when this proposal fails, it would be appropriate for people to stop claiming, falsely, that it is already policy. Since it has already failed once this year (here), persisting in making this false claim strikes me as disruptive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No reason to treat BLPs any differently from any other article, except that we recognize that they are more likely than other articles to generate defamation/privacy breaches, and we should therefore take steps to prevent such (semi-protection being the obvious answer) without otherwise harming the encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hands too much power and responsibility to administrators, and is an attempt to change practice, rather than describe it. Illustrated in the Shankbone case, where a snowball no consensus was closed as a keep and then a delete. The usual and sensible thing is to make major changes by consensus, unless there are pressing and unusual reasons otherwise. In that case, there very clearly were not.John Z (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support despite the fact that Jimbo long ago lost the moral credibility to give any kind of lead to the community I agree that this is way overdue. This is a correct description of what has been happening in deletion discussions recently and is only a small extension to the existing rule that marginally notable blps may be deleted at admin discretion when closing an AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support wording per Jimbo, Lar, Alison, etc. AfDs on marginally notable BLPs should default to delete unless there is clear consensus to keep. Cla68 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Subject requests deletion of questionably notable bio = speedy. Wikipedian mmorpg-max-leveler requests deletion of questionably notable bio of someone he dislikes = defaults to keep. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as illustrative of practice and the right thing to do. Articles can easily be recreated if they deleted incorrectly, or if the person somehow becomes notable. The same cannot be said for something that is kept. It is always better to err on the side of caution with BLPs, and remove it so there is one less thing to worry about. Majorly talk 13:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit confused, are you saying that if an article is kept it cannot be deleted later? The same can be said of something that is kept see: An article can easily be deleted if it is kept incorrectly. Chillum 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If something is possibly causing harm and it's deleted, while it's deleted it isn't causing harm. It can be brought back later. On the other hand, if something is possibly causing harm and it remains around... it's still causing harm. Better safe than sorry. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose new policy, strongly support Jim Wales stepping down permanently. Many of the problems wikipedia has can be attributed to the company culture he has deliberatly cultivated. Ikip (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you seriously asking a Wikipedian to "step down" because he has a contrary point of view with you on this issue? This "company culture" you speak of is the foundation that runs this whole thing and set its initial goals to begin with. The very existence of Wikipedia can be attributed to the company culture so don't hold your breath waiting for anyone to step down. Chillum 14:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a shame this has moved straight to polling when I feel some discussion is in order. Firstly, there is a big difference between a BLP that is up for deletion where the result is "no consensus" and an uncited BLP or one where the debate centers around factual accuracy and the like. A well-cited article about a minor public figure where the debate centers around his notability should not be treated any differently than any other article at AfD. We have no moral obligation to prevent well-cited material from being in here if the only question is to the notability of the subject and this question has ended in no consensus. On the other hand, if the debate is closed as no consensus and after the debate there are still no reliable sources in the article, it may need to be closed as a delete. This would also hold true for BLPs where the no consensus is over "BLP-related issues" so to speak, such as whether a subject can be described from a neutral point of view or whether it an article about the subject would inherently be biased against the subject. I'd support this proposal being worked on some more and codified a bit stricter as not all BLP articles at AfD require special treatment. ThemFromSpace 14:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to try to make things clearer for everybody (concerning how this discussion began and how it relates to the Shankbone AfD), I put together this timeline: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone#Shankbone AfD closing timeline -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Strong oppose per the following points:
1. We are not a dead tree encyclopedia, fortunately, so invoking dead-tree criteria is nonsense.
2. "Marginal notability" has no policy/guideline definition I am aware of. It is a can of POV-worms. If it is notable, it is notable. If not, it is not. We already have tons of restrictive BLP guidelines that help prune non-notable people.
3. It gives too much power to the closing admin discretion, making it easier to disregard the community feeling
4. I see no hint it is "accepted practice". I know many editors and admins subscribe to such a point of view, but it's all but clear that they are a majority and even them do not always abide to such a conduct.
5. I see no compelling reason to "default to delete" for no consensus BLPs, unless the discussion has proven serious BLP concerns which cannot be solved by less drastic means like editing, semiprotection and protection, as per the deletion policy: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion..
6. WP:JIMBOSAID.
--Cyclopiatalk 15:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Who invoked dead-tree criteria? marginal notability != dead-tree criteria. 2) Marginal notability exists when the community is unable to come to a consensus that a subject is notable. If it needs a definition, it can be defined, but its not like its an undefinable abstract concept. 3) Admins have always had the discretion to do this and several have been doing so. 5) That's basically the "someone will fix it" approach that's gotten us into this mess. If there's a threat of deletion, someone might actually fix it during the AFD, otherwise, no one will be bothered to do so, they'll just argue that it could be fixed and therefore should be kept, regardless of how bad the current state is. Mr.Z-man 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1)The proposer invoked dead-tree criteria: Being kind is more important than having every marginal BLP that no dead tree encyclopedia would have. 2)We have notability guidelines. Even too many of them. If there is no consensus, it means that there is no consensus, not that it is consensually "marginally notable". 3)Admins as far as I understand do not have the discretion to delete articles disregarding the AfD outcome and the current "default to keep" policy 5)"Someone will fix it" is how this encyclopedia works. We have no deadline, we're not in a hurry and the deletion policy says that if it can be fixed by editing, so be it. Note it says "can", not "will", see above. --Cyclopiatalk 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose (and agree that this is a bad time for such a change and this discussion). Yes, if someone requests deletion, we should weight this request. But globally defaulting to delete for just one class of articles is further WP:CREEP and not a good idea. One reason for default to keep is to avoid fighting the same battle over and over again when contentious articles are recreated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, why exactly is this a bad time? This has nothing to do with Shankbone. There's always some AfD or another that some person or another is going to claim is controversial. We have been deleting things under admin discretion this way for some time now, the wording change just allows written policy to catch up to practice. (++Lar: t/c 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are wrong in claiming that "this has nothing to do with Shankbone". The change was made during the closing phase of the AfD, by an involved admin who had previously argued for deletion (on DRV), and who then used that change to justify his very controversial close as "delete". This is not "some person or other" claiming controversy, these are many experienced users, many of them admins. Adn "we" have not been deleting things this way. I think this change should be discussed independent from the current AfD, and I don't think this can be achieved now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Default to delete is just the right thing to do and those of you that are oppposing are a bunch of meanies. That's a semi facetious comment, but if you're opposing this, go look in a mirror, and repeat to yourself that we are supposed to be excellent to each other, to be nice, to be respectful of those that our widely publicised pages might harm, and then look deep within yourself and see if having a bunch of marginal BLPs around that often end up wildly slanted, or vandalism targets, or worse, is really the sort of project you want to be associated with. If after that little exercise you want to default to keep, well then, yes you are a big meanie. For shame. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you are not a kind of ethical authority that can tell us from heavens what is "right" or "wrong". It is the right thing for you and for people who agree with you, nothing else. Much less you can tell people that disagree with you that are meanies or that should shame: should I remind an administrator of WP:NPA? Please accept that there are different viewpoints on what is considered right or wrong, and accept that ethics is not an absolute. That said, I stand even more strongly after your comment by default to keep. Because you made it clear that there is no reason to default to delete apart from a very idiosyncratic POV on the existence of "marginal BLP" (without even a definition of "marginal"). The project I want to be associated with is a project which doesn't self-censor for a vague "might harm" handwaving. It is a project which encompasses as much as possible notable informaton in a reliable way. It is a project which exists to be an encyclopedia, not a charity. And I have no shame for that, I am proud of that. What I would be ashamed of, is a project which is so insecure about itself to decide to self-censor itself. --Cyclopiatalk 16:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite well-stated. "Avoid harm" is an admirable goal, taken on its own. But the primary goal of Wikipedia is to be a free repository of all human knowledge. Our gamble is on "more information is better". The current (?as of yesterday?) policy allows for special consideration of the subject - that goes far enough to avoid harm. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a project which encompasses as much as possible notable informaton in a reliable way. " Actually, it's not. That might be the GOAL, but it's not the outcome. Take a look at how many articles needed to be protected and how many more need it but haven't been. That's all the moral authority I need. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should be "all the moral authority [you] need" to protect the articles, not to delete them without consensus (or a request from the subject of the biography). user:J aka justen (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Call me a meanie if you will, but it seems to me that the issues behind our normal default to "keep" stance don't go away just because the subject is a living person. A blanket "default to delete" is just too broad of a change to address BLP problems. I would support an advisory that admins should take BLP issues into consideration when adjudicating AfDs, but deleting articles when there is no consensus to delete them is just too sweeping a change. A person can be against "having a bunch of marginal BLPs around that often end up wildly slanted, or vandalism targets, or worse" and still oppose this proposal. Powers T 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Shame on you, Lar, for using those kind of tactics, which are definitely not in keeping with we are supposed to be excellent to each other, to be nice, to be respectful". I oppose defaulting to delete, because it's not the right solution for the problem of negative, unsourced BLPs. POV and sourcing issues are, and have always been, editing issues. Whack it out with a chainsaw if needed, but there's no call to delete. Sure, it will be in the history (although that can be fixed without deleting the whole article), but it would also be in the history if a vandal came along and replaced the article with "This person is a (insert derogatory term of your choosing here)." We don't delete the article when that happens (which is certainly unsourced negative information), so what's the need to delete for other unsourced negative info? If we need to fix issues with edits that shouldn't stay in history, or bad editors, let's focus on that issue. Don't use deletion as a means of throwing the baby out with the bath water.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this isn't about Shankbone at all - it's about using that AfD to create a policy that was rejected. User:Jake Wartenberg, the "close no consensus default to delete" admin, took a two sentence biography with spurious sources of Yll Hoxha and in an AfD with six deletes and six keeps, did a "close no consensus default to keep" just on October 9th. Here we had five mainstream sources (Columbia Journalism Review, Brooklyn Rail, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Jewish Week) and better arguments to keep. No, not about Shankbone at all. Go Yll Hoxha! --LooptyLoos (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what point you are trying to make here, and some people seem to be missing what the language of the proposed change said, namely that no consensus AfDs on marginally notable bio articles may default to delete, basically at administrator discretion, not that they must. So if Jake Wartenberg was a believer in this principle (and I'm not defending his edit of the policy while the Shankbone AfD was running—that was clearly wrong, as was his choice to close the AfD), it would not at all be inconsistent for him to close Yll Hoxha as default to keep and David Shankbone default to delete. Presumably the argument one would make (certainly the one I would make) is that there were already BLP related problems with the Shankbone article and a strong argument was made in the AfD that these problems would continue, whereas that did not seem to be an issue for the Yll Hoxha article. Speaking as an admin who does close AfDs from time to time, I would only use the "no consensus, default to delete" option when there was a strong argument in the AfD that this was necessary because of BLP issues in the article. Perhaps we could reword the proposed change somewhat to make that more clear. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "may" word does not make the problem go away. The point is: If no consensus is reached to change the status of an article, the default to stay with the status quo until consensus comes out. If we give free choice to delete whenever there is no consensus, we basically make debated AfD outcomes almost completely dependent on the arbitrary admin will, meaning that admins will be given green light to disregard community processes, if they wish, whenever they are not bound by a huge majority of one side. Admins are human beings and have biases and preferences like anyone else, and as much as I appreciate their work, I wouldn't like them being able to delete articles only based on their own personal opinion. Otherwise we could shut down AfD and let individual admins decide. I hope no one sincerely wants that. --Cyclopiatalk 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this proposal gained consensus, which already looks like it won't happen unfortunately, then it would not mean that "admins will be given green light to disregard community processes," it would mean that a community process had been changed in such a manner to give admins a green light to use their discretion on a certain class of AfDs (we already require them to use their discretion on AfDs in general when they determine "rough consensus", which is undoubtedly a judgment call, so it's not an enormous leap). The change could be worded in such a manner that is set real limits on what admins could do (e.g. marginally notable BLPs could be deleted if and only if there was a strong (and specific, as opposed to general) BLP-related argument in the AfD, which for 98% of BLP AfDs is simply not the case), and if any one admin got out of control they would certainly hear about it from the community. Ultimately what we are talking about is giving admins one other choice in how they close a certain set of BLPs. They already have three choices, and are already biased humans with their own opinions, so I don't think what is being proposed is remotely as radical as folks seem to be suggesting here. I think there are ways to word the policy such that it would be difficult to abuse it, and maybe we should have started by talking about that rather than supporting/opposing right off the bat. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Policy should not be changed to reflect practice. That's what discussion and consensus building is for. Rather, practice should itself be changed to reflect policy until that policy is changed through due process. Marginal notability defaults to notability and to keep. Lack of notability, marginal or not, is what defaults to delete. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Firstly, Wikipedia affects real lives and reputations. If you're unlucky enough to have a Wikipedia biography about you, it can damage your reputation and even impact your ability to find work. We have a responsibility to promote and encourage good quality and reliable BLPs, but we also have a duty to ensure that those that fall short of the standards required are deleted. But why do we need to go the extra bit and ensure that those articles that we as a community just can't make our mind up on get deleted as well? Quite simply because it is in exactly this grey area that most of our problems occur. If you're a veteran politician or a popular musician, you probably don't have much to fear from issues with your biography. If you're a celebrity restaraunt critic or similar you might have more concerns about content, especially when it gets referenced in interviews with you. If you're even more obscure and only borderline notable, anything your article says has an even larger impact. It's for these people whose biographies inhabit the grey middle ground who need our protection moreso than the rest, and who should be afforded our protection. Secondly, this isn't about purging well sourced material. An article that clearly passes our policies for inclusion is likely to result in a strong keep vote at AfD. It's only those articles on the borderline - that already suffer from sourcing issues - that would be deleted in these cases. Also, deletion isn't forever - if better sourcing comes to light the article can always be sandboxed and improved upon. Thirdly, BLPs are a large workload for the OTRS volunteers. They are tricky subjects and difficult to resolve, and take a large amount of our volunteers limited time. We are reaching a point in time where volunteer effort in this project as a whole is fading (see list of acive admins etc), and it's right to make some sensible choices about how that effort is best used. We can no longer rely on unclear or inefficient policy, just shrug our shoulders and think that OTRS, or Admins, or BLP patrol will clear it up afterwards. We have to grasp the nettle and say that for some issues like these we have to implement fixes that may not be the most desirable in a perfect editing environment, but that are the fairest, most transparent and most straightforward we can manage. Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, I would encourage anyone who opposes this motion to try out volunteering for OTRS and working the quality queue for a while. Gazimoff 18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that an invitation, or just the standard blowoff? Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to help with OTRS but I understood it was only for trusted admins (and rightly so). I will have a look. --Cyclopiatalk 18:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a genuine suggestion. OTRS isn't an admin-only thing, and I'd encourage anyone to apply to join. What I'm trying to say is that it's not right that we only look at the end result that's displayed to our readers, but that we also look at the feedback those readers provide us and how hard or time consuming it can be to resolve some of that feedback. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, or even the word of Cary Bass (who runs OTRS). I'm suggesting that you apply and see it for yourself. Read some of the emails, listen to the voicemails, respond to the issues these people bring to us. Then come back here and revisit this issue, and see if you still feel the same way. Many thanks, Gazimoff 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that the ticket queue provides insight into the many wp:blp issues we face here, and the same goes for wp:blp/n, which I have spent some time at trying to assist resolving issues, including two notable ones that I recall where arguable notability combined with vocal detractors as anonymous editors made the situations particularly challenging for the biography subjects. In both of those cases, time, mediation, and a lot of patience resulted in resolutions that all sides agreed with. All of this to say that I agree deletion has its place, and if either of those two individuals had requested deletion, I would have supported their requests. Deletion should not, however, be carried out without that request or without community consensus. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. I see several issues here. (i) Subjects of articles that are seen as having marginal notability can ask to have their articles removed and that would tip any no consensus scale to delete. (ii) As they are living people who have already gained at least borderline notability ... seemingly they are simply one or two interviews or other media coverage about them to meet the GNG. (iii) The very real next step of logic is that all discussions should be ruled as default to delete unless an umambiguous keep is proven. Thus gaming the systems for those that seem to be into that becomes that much easier. (iv) The default to keep seems to work well in that it presumes that with more time and attention an article can and will improve. We still waste a lot of good content that our readers want when alternatives are readily available but unfortunately the entire XfD system thrives on a battleground basis instead of working to ultimately serve our readers. This is seen repeated daily and the very people who are willing to do the work are repelled by the perpetual toxic atmosphere. IMHO, this will only add fuel to an already contentious area serving only those who wish to simply delete content - we instead should reward assessment and finding ways to keep the best material. I think we fall very short in that. -- Banjeboi 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I do work at OTRS (though I don't see a "quality" queue, just the normal vandalism, courtesy etc. queues; does one need to apply especially?) as well as at AfD and I can't say that I remember a case where such a deletion policy would have been required to delete an actually harmful BLP article. Such cases are normally rather extraordinary and can be dealt with under CSD or BLP rules directly. That means I don't think the "do no harm" argument is applicable here. Whether it is more generally desirable to have more borderline notable articles around is another question, but I have no clear and general opinion on that subject.  Sandstein  19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Until such time as WP can make a reasonable assurance that material on a living person, who serves to be potentially damaged by writings here, is protected, monitored, otherwise, this is to me the only sensible option. "SOFIXIT", etc, etc, do nothing to solve the root problem. Why should a subject of a BLP that is inaccurate and/or defamatory have to find someone who is NOTCOI to fix these issues? They shouldn't. Achromatic (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy&oldid=322195684"