Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Noland (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Speedy keep No idea what you're shooting for, Jimbo — you file an AFD just because the article has a broken source, and then vote "keep" in the same. I'll just go ahead and close this since it's clearly not a deletion issue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lucy Noland
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This biography is sourced mostly to a 404 not found page, please see talk for discussion. Issue was raised there more than two weeks ago and no one came to the rescue. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, no good reason for deletion has been given, and nominator is supposed to do some checks before starting a deletion discussion (or, worse, a ProD). Reliable sourecs like this one validate much of the info in the article, and are available through a simple Google News search. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep You can find plenty of coverage in the G-News archives. No one came to the rescue? Nothing unusual. I've noted that a lot of talk page comments is left unanswered for years. The article needs competent editing, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - but there is a broader problem not really acknowledged in the comments above. We have hundreds of similarly unsourced or poorly sourced BLP articles, and if leaving a question on a talk page gives rise to no improvement and no discussion, that's a problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you of all people should know that we are unpaid volunteers. We simply can't always rush to the rescue, especially when it's only noted on a talk page. Most talk pages are not read more than twice a year. That's why we use templates like BLPunsourced and BLPrefimprove - so that people can find those articles via a category. Seeing that it was never placed there, it's no surprise that noone came to the rescue. Don't forget, several drives over the last year have reduced the amount of such problems drastically. I doubt there is any way to make it go faster, unless we can either a.) drastically increase our community or b.) pay people to do it. Regards  So Why  19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, we are all volunteers here. I'm not complaining about anyone's performance, just pointing out a systemic failure.  You are right, of course, that one way to resolve the problem is to increase the number of people working on it, in some way or another.  You are also right that templates of the kind you mention are helpful tools.  Another way, though, is to delete articles that we cannot responsibly maintain.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hundreds? That would be a day for a celebration, not for declaring a problem... We have needed a speedy deletion clash before many people started tackling the three-year old unsourced BLPs, never mind waiting two weeks on a sourced BLP that could do with more and better sources. Thanks to a number of dedicated sourcers and the deletion of new unsourced BLPs after seven days, we only get some 1,000 new unsourced BLPs a month. Many pages are totally unwatched, meaning that no one will know if a question is asked on a talk page. Leaving a tag to the article itself will at least have the twofold benefit of adding the article to some maintenance categories, and alerting the casual reader that the article may have some problems. Fram (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.