Talk:The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert/RFC One

RFC on Table of Awards
The table listing the Awards has no citations.

It was removed from the article by this edit, because it is unsourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Adventures_of_Priscilla%2C_Queen_of_the_Desert&diff=1156503955&oldid=1152957036

It was then restored to the article by this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Adventures_of_Priscilla%2C_Queen_of_the_Desert&diff=1157091434&oldid=1157090908

Should the table be removed from the article as long as it is unsourced?

The choices are to remove the unsourced table, or to retain the table. If citations are added to the table, this RFC can be closed as overtaken by events. Enter Yes or Remove or Delete in the Survey to remove the table, with a brief supporting statement. Enter No or Keep in the Survey to keep the table, with a brief supporting statement. Do not reply to other statements in the Survey. The Discussion section is provided for back-and-forth discussion.

Survey
Keep The deleting editor User:Koavf asks: “Why are you adding claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations?” Out of the three Wikipedia policy violations adduced by the editor (WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP), only WP:BLP warrants deletion without discussion, otherwise if the table is disappeared from view, future editors will be unlikely to add inline citations, perhaps being unaware it ever existed. If the deleting editor can demonstrate I added claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations, then I will agree to the removal of such claims, but not to the deletion of the table. If the deleting editor can likewise show which contributions in the table have no reliable, published sources or that are likely to be challenged out of the blue, and why, after remaining unchallenged for 7 years and 2 million views, then he can add citations himself, rather than making this someone else's problem. The proper way to flag a need for inline citations is by, not arbitrary deletion of the entire Awards table. This Awards table is a directory table; it is not plain, unverified black text, it links to articles that provide sources. Users can easily find verification. However if it is agreed this table is too compromised to be allowed to remain in the article, this will act as a precedent impacting all the linked-to tables and other directory tables that do not have inline citations either, such as AACTA Awards, which is but one of perhaps thousands more such tables that link to articles containing requisite verifiable sources, but do not themselves include inline citations either, yet which the deleting editor has left intact for as yet undisclosed reasons. Just as clicking a link to another article exits the article, an inline citation sends the reader elsewhere for verification; a link to another article that contains the verification is sufficient to uphold verifiability, otherwise a hapless volunteer will need to add 100 or so citations for AACTA Awards more than doubling the article's citation count, when the information is already in the articles linked to. If the decision to delete the Priscilla Awards table without discussion is upheld, then AACTA Awards has to be deleted too, presumably by User:Koavf who can defend his action on its Talk page, if someone notices it's disappeared. I view deleting without discussion a table that has stood unchallenged for 7 years with 2 million views as deletionism. Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)