This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Milowent (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 27 October 2010 (→Unreferenced BLPs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:08, 27 October 2010 by Milowent (talk | contribs) (→Unreferenced BLPs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)User talk:Tony Sidaway/Notices
Unreferenced BLPs
Well done. I was wondering when it was time to say "enough". I think we need to make one more try to get an agreement with a hard deadline. Failing that, I need to find 6 admins willing to jump into the fire with me.--Scott Mac 15:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to try to keep a low profile on this going forward (though you know I must fail in the effort of course if we're to get anywhere.)
- I think the idea of clearing the backlog by the tenth anniversary of Misplaced Pages in 2011 could work, particularly if we could get Jimmy Wales our nominal deity to consider that a worthwhile and achievable goal.
- I still find it difficult to understand why there is so much lethargy and foot-dragging on this. What conceivable good can we do by keeping unsourced stuff about living persons aroun? We might as well just import unchecked gibbering from blog feeds and stick an "unsourced" tag on them so they can sit around for a few years. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- How many unreferenced BLPs have you guys sourced today? There are no minions here.--Milowent • 20:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs
Hi Tony, I see that you have tagged a number of unsourced BLPs for speedy deletion on the basis that they have been tagged as unsourced BLPs for an extended period. I just removed one of those tags and I see that others have done the same on the other articles you tagged. These articles don't appear to fit any valid criterion for speedy deletion, and the reason you gave for listing them is outside what policy permits.
Of course these articles are not eligible for WP:BLPPROD because they are too old, but it's worth noting that the way you want to treat them (immediate deletion without discussion or time to fix) is considerably harsher than what blpprod allows for.
While I agree that many of these should be deleted, speedy deletion is not the way to accomplish this unless they also happen to qualify under a speedy deletion criterion such as A7. It would probably be best to WP:AFD them and let the full deletion process take effect.
Cheers,
Thparkth (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is no formal speedy deletion criterion, but the articles can be deleted on sight under the arbitration principle from the Badlydrawnjeff case, which I quote in full at the top of the discussion I started at WP:AN. If any other editor wants to remove such a tag, that's okay too, but it doesn't solve the problem. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- They can only be summarily deleted if they are against policy, per the case you cite, which means only if they are contentious or negative. I would quite like WP:BLP to go futher than it does at present, but the fact remains that it doesn't... Thparkth (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)