| Revision as of 22:00, 21 January 2010 editAlison (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators47,244 edits →Thank you: Wow!@← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:02, 21 January 2010 edit undoScott MacDonald (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,363 edits →Thank you: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of ]. You have my support.--] (]) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of ]. You have my support.--] (]) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| : Oh wow!! :o - ] <sup>]</sup> 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | : Oh wow!! :o - ] <sup>]</sup> 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks Jimbo. That is indeed appreciated.--] 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:02, 21 January 2010
My name is Scott MacDonald (well, maybe) and I am a recovering Wikipediholic. For the sake of my work, family, and sanity, I have mainly given up this unhealthy addiction to a project of questionable ethics - and no desire to fix them.
Will I be back to full editing? I don't know. I hope not. Messages may be left here, and will be read periodically. However, I am unlikely to respond to most project-related messages.
--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of BLPs
Rationale.
Together with a number of other administrators, I am deleting biographies of living people which have been unsourced for considerable lengths of time, and have not improved. Currently, my deletion have been of articles unsourced for over three years.
I am doing this because it is the right thing to do, and is consistent with the BLP polcy that unacceptable unsourced material on living people should be removed from this project. This has nothing to do with the notability or otherwise of the article. Deletion is, naturaly, a last resort. It would be better if these articles were fixed. However, three years of tagging and waiting and improvement and this fixing has not happened for these articles. Three years or more of discussion and the community has put in place no other realistic remedy. Thus it is time for the last resort. I encourage other administrators to follow this lead - as I am following those who began this.
Of course, removing unsourced BLPs does not solve the BLP problem, but it is a start.
Objections
If you belive an article should be kept, you are at liberty to restore it, providing you properly fix the sourcing issues, and any other BLP issues it may raise. I do not object to undeletion if you take responsibility for this. If you are not an administrator, you can list the article below, note your willingness to fix it, and I, or another admin will restore it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am definitely just coming in to the middle of the debate here. Is not the key word surely Unacceptable. An unsourced BLP that has no negatives does not come under this at all and should undergo the normal process of notability. Polargeo (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- All material on living people ought to be vertified and referenced. It is the least we can do when we write about people - check there's sources toback it up. For a time it may be OK to to say "hey this is incomplete, someone will check it and source it later". What is unacceptable is retaining articles for years and years when it has become obvious that ain't happening. Notability has nothing to do with this - this is about verification and quality control.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Please shoot me an email at laralovewiki(at)gmail(dot)com. Lara 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, my e-mail is broken right now. Best thing is to message me through WR.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- G-gmail is a glory to behold, but I will pm you on WR. Lara 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Rats!
You mean Badlydrawnjeff Part 2 just happened and I missed all the fun? I'm as sick as a parrot! Tony Sidaway, from my Skypephone which alas despite being the veritable canine testes is not equipped with BLP-sensitive RADAR. --Tasty monster 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of WP:BOLD. You have my support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh wow!! :o - Alison 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Jimbo. That is indeed appreciated.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)