Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Archive 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment | Biographies of living people Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:21, 28 January 2010 view sourceDronkle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,793 edits Update to today's figures← Previous edit Revision as of 01:00, 31 January 2010 view source Dronkle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,793 edits updateNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
|15:58, 21/01/2010 |15:58, 21/01/2010
|"poorly referenced or completely unreferenced should be deleted on-sight" |"poorly referenced or completely unreferenced should be deleted on-sight"
|53 |54
|145 |156
|1 |1
|Stricter - Delete all |Stricter - Delete all
Line 30: Line 30:
# Prod notices should not be removed, nor should articles be undeleted, unless proper references are added. Anybody who engages in mass de-prodding or undeletion without adding references risks a block for ]. # Prod notices should not be removed, nor should articles be undeleted, unless proper references are added. Anybody who engages in mass de-prodding or undeletion without adding references risks a block for ].
# All editors are invited to participate in this BLP cleanup campaign. # All editors are invited to participate in this BLP cleanup campaign.
|158 |163
|32 |34
|1 |1
|Stricter |Stricter
Line 38: Line 38:
|16:22, 21/01/2010 |16:22, 21/01/2010
|align=left|"The risk reduced--and let's be clear, there certainly will be some--is insufficient to justify the widespread deletion of accurate, useful, and innocuous information, sourced or not, and ultimately damages Misplaced Pages without helping BLP vandalism subjects." |align=left|"The risk reduced--and let's be clear, there certainly will be some--is insufficient to justify the widespread deletion of accurate, useful, and innocuous information, sourced or not, and ultimately damages Misplaced Pages without helping BLP vandalism subjects."
|77 |81
|18 |19
|0 |0
|No change |No change
Line 46: Line 46:
|16:16, 21/01/2010 |16:16, 21/01/2010
|align=left|"Existence of a person is not, however, controversial nor contentious. WP has policies for deleting articles lacking notability, and no Draconian policy of automatic article deletion should pre-empt the orderly functioning of processes already existing." |align=left|"Existence of a person is not, however, controversial nor contentious. WP has policies for deleting articles lacking notability, and no Draconian policy of automatic article deletion should pre-empt the orderly functioning of processes already existing."
|78 |81
|18 |19
|2 |3
|No change |No change
|- align=center valign=top |- align=center valign=top
Line 55: Line 55:
|align=left|"I suggest a PROD-like template - call it BLP-PROD - which says "Find references for this article or it DIES." Five days seems too long, make it two days." |align=left|"I suggest a PROD-like template - call it BLP-PROD - which says "Find references for this article or it DIES." Five days seems too long, make it two days."
|64 |64
|43 |46
|1 |1
|Stricter |Stricter
Line 62: Line 62:
|17:10, 21/01/2010 |17:10, 21/01/2010
|align=left|"For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless." |align=left|"For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless."
|60 |63
|5 |5
|3 |4
|No change |No change
|-align=center valign=top |-align=center valign=top
Line 70: Line 70:
|18:12, 21/01/2010 |18:12, 21/01/2010
|align=left|"The real problem is unsourced contentious info, not unreferenced articles. The proposal will do nothing or little to the real problem, and at the same time incur tremendous costs." |align=left|"The real problem is unsourced contentious info, not unreferenced articles. The proposal will do nothing or little to the real problem, and at the same time incur tremendous costs."
|46 |48
|13 |14
|0 |0
|No change |No change
Line 78: Line 78:
|19:25, 21/01/2010 |19:25, 21/01/2010
|align=left|"The arbcom motion is not to be understood as changing or superseding general deletion policy and process as applied to the biographies of living persons, and it should be considered void if and insofar as it might have been intended to have that effect. Instead, any policy change should be decided by community consensus, starting with this RfC." |align=left|"The arbcom motion is not to be understood as changing or superseding general deletion policy and process as applied to the biographies of living persons, and it should be considered void if and insofar as it might have been intended to have that effect. Instead, any policy change should be decided by community consensus, starting with this RfC."
|71 |73
|5 |5
|3 |3
Line 90: Line 90:


After that, we can consider how long is a reasonable life span (I would say one week, but one month could be fine as well) for new biographies to exist in a sad state before they are deleted. After that, we can consider how long is a reasonable life span (I would say one week, but one month could be fine as well) for new biographies to exist in a sad state before they are deleted.
|34 |36
|22 |24
|1 |4
|Stricter |Stricter
|-align=center valign=top |-align=center valign=top

Revision as of 01:00, 31 January 2010

submission submission time subject current numbers Stance
Support
(S) 		Oppose
(O) 		Neutral
(N)
MZMcBride 15:58, 21/01/2010 "poorly referenced or completely unreferenced should be deleted on-sight" 54 156 1 Stricter - Delete all
Jehochman 16:14, 21/01/2010
  1. Any article that satisfies the attack page criteria should be deleted on sight.
  2. Biographies of living persons (BLP) articles that are unreferenced should be proposed for deletion (prod).
  3. Prodding should proceed at a reasonable rate to allow interested editors the chance to add sources. The volume of proposed deletions should not be unreasonably large. Discussion can establish what is a reasonable pace.
  4. After five seven days, any article so tagged may be deleted, or moved to the Misplaced Pages:Article incubator if it shows promise.
  5. Prod notices should not be removed, nor should articles be undeleted, unless proper references are added. Anybody who engages in mass de-prodding or undeletion without adding references risks a block for disruption.
  6. All editors are invited to participate in this BLP cleanup campaign.
 163 34 1 Stricter
Jclemens 16:22, 21/01/2010 "The risk reduced--and let's be clear, there certainly will be some--is insufficient to justify the widespread deletion of accurate, useful, and innocuous information, sourced or not, and ultimately damages Misplaced Pages without helping BLP vandalism subjects." 81 19 0 No change
Collect 16:16, 21/01/2010 "Existence of a person is not, however, controversial nor contentious. WP has policies for deleting articles lacking notability, and no Draconian policy of automatic article deletion should pre-empt the orderly functioning of processes already existing." 81 19 3 No change
David Gerard 16:17, 21/01/2010 "I suggest a PROD-like template - call it BLP-PROD - which says "Find references for this article or it DIES." Five days seems too long, make it two days." 64 46 1 Stricter
DGG 17:10, 21/01/2010 "For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless." 63 5 4 No change
Power.corrupts 18:12, 21/01/2010 "The real problem is unsourced contentious info, not unreferenced articles. The proposal will do nothing or little to the real problem, and at the same time incur tremendous costs." 48 14 0 No change
Sandstein 19:25, 21/01/2010 "The arbcom motion is not to be understood as changing or superseding general deletion policy and process as applied to the biographies of living persons, and it should be considered void if and insofar as it might have been intended to have that effect. Instead, any policy change should be decided by community consensus, starting with this RfC." 73 5 3 N/A
Jimbo Wales 15:14, 25/01/2010 "Starting with everything which has been unreferenced for more than 3 years, a three-month notice time starting February 1st, before they are deleted on May 1st. 2. Starting with everything which has been unreferenced for more than 2 years, a three-month notice time starting May 1st, before they are deleted on August 1st. 3. Starting with everything which has been unferenced for more than 1 year, a three-month notice time starting August first, before they are deleted on November 1st.

In all cases, biographies deleted for being old and unreferenced should be put onto a list for those who wish to come behind and work on them further.

After that, we can consider how long is a reasonable life span (I would say one week, but one month could be fine as well) for new biographies to exist in a sad state before they are deleted.

36 24 4 Stricter
S O N