| Revision as of 05:21, 1 February 2010 view sourceIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:21, 1 February 2010 view source Ikip (talk | contribs)59,234 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
| |Stricter | |Stricter | ||
| |-align=center valign=top | |-align=center valign=top | ||
| |<!--name--> | |<!--name-->] | ||
| |<!--posted--> | |<!--posted--> | ||
| |align=left|<!--proposal--> This proposal is to create a mechanically ranked list of all unsourced BLPs, so editors who want to remove inappropriate articles can work up from the bottom of the list, and editors who want to retain valuable content can work down from the top. Obvious ranking criteria would be: | |align=left|<!--proposal--> This proposal is to create a mechanically ranked list of all unsourced BLPs, so editors who want to remove inappropriate articles can work up from the bottom of the list, and editors who want to retain valuable content can work down from the top. Obvious ranking criteria would be: | ||
Revision as of 05:21, 1 February 2010
| submission | submission time | subject | Support (S) |
Oppose (O) |
Neutral (N) |
Stance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|
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 |
| Aymatth2 | This proposal is to create a mechanically ranked list of all unsourced BLPs, so editors who want to remove inappropriate articles can work up from the bottom of the list, and editors who want to retain valuable content can work down from the top. Obvious ranking criteria would be:
The values would be given weightings in a ranking formula such as: (inboundlinks x 100) + (uniqueeditors x 150) + (sizekb x 50) - (agedays x 1) - (lasteditdays x 0.5) |
|||||